News: Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stuttle,

Just because you don't use the word "dishonest," doesn't mean the concept of dishonest is not present. You essentially accused me of being in collusion with Pross to pull one over on everybody to let him get away with plagiarism, then lie about it and pretend to be the victim only because it got found out. I gave my reasons for doing what I did and you said they were basically a lie. That means dishonest in Kelly-speak, but maybe not in Stuttle-speak.

I find you insistence on this accusation at the time disgusting.

But it's still up.

You also qualified your statement about Jennifer's book "if you (Stuttle) are right" (about "the point" in PARC), her book Goddess "does a good job of making it." In other words, her book makes your point if you are right (and does a good job at that).

Well what if you're wrong? Does her book change all of a sudden and no longer make "the point"? Are the meanings in her book based on you being right or wrong? Here's some news. Her book means what it means and has nothing to do with whether you are right or wrong about anything, much less some wacky theory to make Valliant's vicious integrity-and-scholarship-be-damned attack on the Brandens not look like that.

Pure Stuttle-speak.

Boneheaded.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

No, I didn't "essentially" accuse you of what you say I did. What the Kelly-speak of your comments about my post on PARC re Goddess might mean, I can't decipher.

Ellen

[Alfonso Jones]

I note that the Jennifer Burns book will soon be out in Kindle format, for those interested in such.

Bill P

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stuttle,

Blah blah blah.

Stuttle-speak = weasel words so when you are called on something, you can weasel around about it.

I suppose "moral low-ground" in Stuttle-speak would be something soft, warm, fuzzy and cuddly.

I hold that you are manipulative, but not stupid. You knew exactly what you were doing.

As to your lack of understanding of plain English, I'll make it clear for you in your own words.

You said "the point" of PARC was:

... to counteract an image of Rand which was succinctly expressed in an oft-quoted phrase from a Kirkus review: "the frightful mess that was Ayn Rand." "The point" is to argue that Ayn Rand wasn't a mess, frightful or otherwise.

Your words. Stuttle-speak or not, the meaning of this passage is quite clear.

What you said was not "the point" of PARC, as I've mentioned above (although it was present in some passages of PARC as a secondary message). In other words, you are clear in your meaning, but you are wrong. Then you also claimed:

If I'm correct in identifying "the point," then I'd say that Goddess does a good job of making it.

Well you didn't identify "the point."

Instead, you made a real weasel maneuver to enlist the complicity of a book that had nothing to do with any alleged crusade to "counteract an image of Rand" as a "frightful mess" and it certainly has nothing to do with Valliant's actual crusade to trash the Brandens at all costs (i.e. "the real point" of PARC).

I call this Stuttle-speak boneheadedness at best.

Michael

EDIT: Incidentally, I just saw a comment from you that shows a telling and glaring omission. Talking about Goddess, you said:

... I think it's the first book truly to start to give a basis from which a wider perspective on Rand's bigness can be glimmered. It lifts her out of the squabbling and provides the first sketch of a long-range-historic frame.

I have no doubt it gives such a perspective, but it was far, far, far from the first. Try Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical by Chris Matthew Sciabarra published in 1995. That was the first that I know of on a book level that has presented a "long-range-historic frame" view of Rand, bigness and all and free from partisan squabbles. And until ARI trashed this book, Chris was just as much an independent scholar as Jennifer is. In fact he still is.

Such an omission makes me wonder about things...

(Actually, by this standard, The Passion of Ayn Rand was the first. But we can leave it out since Barbara knew Rand so well. Chris did not know her.)

[Brant Gaede]

Well, I think the "real point" of PARC is to destroy the depiction of Ayn Rand as a real human being with serious, but interesting faults so hoi polloi would get the icon and little else and the way to do this is by attacking primarily Nathaniel Branden and then using the "evidence" against him to attack Barbara Branden, the much more important target, by turning loose a prosecuting attorney attack dog who came up with a buffed up brief re-enforced with generous Rand quotations, the originals we don't have access to, interspersed with more garbage comments from the prosecutor all courtesy of Leonard Peikoff who seems really not to mind what happens to Rand's reputation (Freud!--where are you?) especially relative to anyone of importance who challenges his position as Objectivist top dog--i.e., not under his thumb--that being anyone named Branden, then Kelley, then Reisman, etc.

--Brant

screed merchant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

The explication in #204 does clarify what you meant by the mush.

About Russian Radical, it isn't the sort of panoramic perspective I'm thinking of. It's research into Rand's origins, and certainly it was path-breaking and very important in counteracting the "sprung from the head of Zeus" image. But it's not "wide-lens" in the way I mean. And Barbara's book is close-up, opposite direction of the focus.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I've got work to do.

Saying "mush" don't make it so.

I've said what I've got to say and oodles of people understand it perfectly (not the insiders on SLOP, of course).

I stand by what I wrote.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Back to business.

Does anyone have any ideas about a contest for receiving a free copy of Goddess? In a few days I will have some copies to offer as prizes.

I already have a few ideas, but I would like some feedback if anyone wants to contribute their thoughts.

Let's have some fun with this and spread the word, too.

I would love to tap into what Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh are doing.

And who knows? You might get a free book.

Michael

EDIT: I just had a cute idea. How's this for starters? Coasting on the coattails of Hannity, how about a Hate MSK Hotline contest? The one who comes up with the most hilarious hate entry gets a free copy of Jennifer's book.

I think a "Why you hate Phil Coat's" contest would be more fun.

[Robert Campbell]

Since I'm planning to cut back on my visits to Jabba's Palace (aka SOLO), here are two items I recently posted over there in response to Ellen Stuttle.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/6956#comment-79522

http://www.solopassion.com/node/6956#comment-79566

To net them out, I largely agree with Michael Stuart Kelly about the latest Stuttlian turn.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I quoted them here (in you post below) so folks who don't want to have to leave the site. And should the text get altered or deleted on Solo Passion, it's preserved here...

Since I'm planning to cut back on my visits to Jabba's Palace (aka SOLO), here are two items I recently posted over there in response to Ellen Stuttle.

http://www.solopassi...6#comment-79522

Ellen Stuttle's political maneuvering has now led where several observers, 6 or more months ago, predicted it would take her.

Ms. Stuttle has come out and endorsed Jim Valliant's wretched opus ... sort of.

As I noted in a thread that Mr. Perigo won't sticky and Ms. Stuttle won't participate in, because it was initiated by Neil "The Ant" Parille, Ms. Stuttle's change of position is, um, underwhelming.

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

Ayn Rand for Philosopher Queen!

She's ... NOT A FRIGHTFUL MESS!!!

Let's leave aside for a moment the awkward fact that no one has defined or explicated what it means to be a "frightful mess" (how dysfunctional must one be? in what ways? for what percentage of the time?). Or that, as an unexplicated term, it allows Ms. Stuttle maximum headroom for wriggling and weaseling. She can pretend, when it suits her, that one is either at the peak of human flourishing or one is a "frightful mess." On other occasions, she will find lots of other possible conditions in between the zenith of healthy functioning and the nadir of hopeless messiness.

Did Barbara Branden, in The Passion of Ayn Rand, characterize Ayn Rand as a frightful mess? Not by my reading.

For that matter, did Nathaniel Branden, in Judgment Day, characterize her as a frightful mess? I don't think so.

And Jim Valliant suppose, when he was putting on his coat of mail and hoisting his lance, that he was riding out to rescue Ayn Rand from ... frightful messiness?

As I noted in the same thread that Ms. Stuttle has been ignoring, Mr. Perigo's boy Gregster actually got one of the purposes of PARC: to carry forward the Peikovian indictment of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden as always and everywhere arbitrary when they speak of Ayn Rand.

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

Correlatively, PARC's other main purpose was to restore the Peikovian vision of Ayn Rand as epistemically superhuman and morally perfect, except on a few occasions when she lost her temper with her faithful servant Leonard.

Mr. Valliant surely imagined he was fulfilling a grander destiny than Ms. Stuttle presently has in mind for him.

Now Goddess of the Market is rougher on Nathaniel Branden than either Barbara's biography or Nathaniel's memoir was.

But Jennifer Burns' book is also rougher on Ayn Rand in some ways. Remember, one of her criticisms of Barbara Branden is that she accepted Ayn Rand's stories about her early days without checking up on them.

Does Dr. Burns support Mr. Valliant on Frank O'Connor's drinking? No.

Does she back his indignant rejection of the allegedly fabricated persona he calls "Mullah Rand"? Hardly. Among other things, Ms. Stuttle has glossed over some fairly harsh judgments that Dr. Burns drew from the Rand-Hospers correspondence.

Does Dr. Burns think that Ayn Rand was being realistic in trying to keep her affair with Nathaniel Branden? No.

Of those who have written books about Ayn Rand, who considered her a "frightful mess"? You could reasonably maintain that Jeff Walker did. Albert Ellis, too; his dictum about the irresistible appeal of Objectivism to the "mentally aberrated" comes to mind.

But Mr. Valliant didn't write PARC to refute Jeff Walker or Albert Ellis. They weren't the twin serpents in the Garden.

By conferring even the feeblest endorsement on Mr. Valliant's book, when she knows from her own careful study what a hunk of junk it is, Ms. Stuttle is consolidating her position in Jabba's Palace—at the cost of making a complete fool of herself.

http://www.solopassi...6#comment-79566

Jabba, aka Lindsay Perigo, complains to Ellen Stuttle: "But you haven't answered me re 'delusional.'"

To which Ms. Stuttle soothingly replies:

It was the wrong word choice. Please notice that even at the time I hesitated about using it, thinking that it would almost surely be misinterpreted by folks here -- the "cognate list" referred to. (I didn't anticipate that it might be misinterpreted by folks there and come back to make me regret using it.)

Umm, no. Here's a more straightforward explanation.

Back when Ms. Stuttle used the D-word, she calculated that it wouldn't cost her support at ObjectivistLiving, and she didn't much care how it might rile Jabba and his courtiers over here.

Now, having given up on the ornery, insufficiently deferential constituency at OL, she has spied a significant opportunity here at the Palace—if only she can obtain Jabba's endorsement and hold onto it for a while. Presto changeo, Ms. Stuttle develops well-timed second thoughts about the D-word.

Ms. Stuttle overdramatizes criticisms of herself, but, no, she will not be sitting in the dock at any show trial.

Here are some more realistic prospects:

(1) Jabba takes lasting offense at something she says, maybe the D-word, maybe something else, and sends Ms. Stuttle down the chute to meet the Rancor.

(2) Jabba's wrath is so smoothly deflected, again and again, that after a while there's no one left in the Palace but Jabba, Ms. Stuttle, and a handful of dispensable underlings.

I don't see how outcome (2) is a whole lot more pleasant than outcome (1), but maybe I'm missing something.

Besides, in the broader scheme of things, Jabba's reaction is irrelevant.

Jim Valliant and his book have already been thoroughly discredited. PARC's publisher is defunct. The book may never go back into print. It may never get a serious review in any print publication. But Mr. Valliant and his opus afford endless opportunities for derision and satire—and their exploitation has scarcely begun.

Praise for CRAP-spelled-backwards—even when it is put forward as faintly as Ms. Stuttle's—promises to make her a laughing stock.

To net them out, I largely agree with Michael Stuart Kelly about the latest Stuttlian turn.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

I'm reposting two items from Neil Parille's thread over at SOLO. Both are already linked in the post that Michael quoted.

*************

PARC and Papoon for President

Continuing her steady drift toward a strategically advantageous endorsement of Mr. Valliant's opus, Ellen Stuttle declares that she has discerned its true point.

Apparently, Jim Valliant devoted all of his labors to proving that .... Ayn Rand wasn't a frightful mess!

So, how troubled or dysfunctional can one be at one time or another, and still escape being a frightful mess? Who the hell knows? Frightful messiness isn't exactly a diagnostic category.

Ms. Stuttle's anticlimactic announcement reminds me of the fake presidential campaign mounted by that old-timey spaced-out comedy troupe, Firesign Theater.

George G. Papoon for President

He's NOT INSANE!!!

Robert Campbell

***************

Gregster Gets the Point of PARC

Gregster quotes a key passage from Jim Valliant's opus.

Despite writing hundreds of pages to discredit the memoirs of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, where Leonard Peikoff merely declared that he would never read what they wrote, Mr. Valliant agrees with his mentor that everything those twin serpents have had to say about Ayn Rand is an arbitrary assertion.

And Mr. Valliant gets a key implication of the Peikovian doctrine:

If one day, for example, it is somehow established, to the surprise of the author, that Rand's callous indifference drove her husband to excessive drinking, the current analysis will still stand, and the Brandens' credibility will not have been enhanced in any way. The basis of their inferences will be no more credible and no less arbitrary.

You see, under the Peikovian doctrine, arbitrariness is a function of the person making the assertion.

Therefore, Dr. Peikoff (in his 1987 Ford Hall Forum answer) claimed in effect that "Ayn Rand had an affair with Nathaniel Branden" was an arbitrary assertion, when put forward by either of TheBrandens ™. Whereas, when put forward by Cynthia or Leonard Peikoff, the assertion "Ayn Rand had an affair with Nathaniel Branden" was both meaningful and true.

Hence, his effort to make it appear that The Passion of Ayn Rand did not give him the slightest encouragement to find out whether there had been an affair. In some of his moods, Leonard Peikoff deems it obligatory never to respond to an arbitrary assertion.

So, Mr. Valliant reasons, when Barbara Branden says that Frank O'Connor became an alcoholic, her assertion is arbitrary. And it will remain so, whenever Barbara Branden puts it forward. But someone else, unmarked by serpenthood, might truly assert that Frank O'Connor was an alcoholic. Jennifer Burns might truly say he had a drinking problem, for instance. But even if Dr. Burns asserted it truly, this could never spring Barbara Branden from the fell grip of arbitrariness.

Of course, the position that Gregster is taking is completely nuts.

And, like many a nutty position, it can't be consistently maintained.

According to the Peikovian doctrine, arbitrary assertions have no truth value. Yet Mr. Valliant accuses TheBrandens ™ of making false assertions far more often than he accuses them of arbitrariness.

Oops.

Also according to the Peikovian doctrine, an arbitrary assertion is completely meaningless—in fact, it brings on instant cognitive paralysis in any rational mind—and merely uttering one makes you dumber than a parrot.

But no one believes that TheBrandens' ™ statements about Ayn Rand are meaningless. No one really thinks that when Barbara Branden says that Frank O'Connor became a drunk, her assertion is meaningless. Its meaning is all too clear.

Nor do those who most revile them believe that either Nathaniel or Barbara Branden is dumber than a parrot. They are much more likely, in fact, to portray them as evil geniuses.

Robert Campbell

**********

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Coming Up, Another Endless Round of Food Fights about New Biographies

> Continuing her steady drift toward a strategically advantageous endorsement of Mr. Valliant's opus

That's psychologizing.

Robert, Neil, and your opponents -- do you really want to continue the tong wars and personal vendettas of PAR - PARC? Don't you see that it will continue into the new biographies?

I know there is a temptation to settle old scores and take one more swipe at the character, integrity, honesty of someone who disagrees with you about an aspect of a biography of a dead philosopher. But don't you realize that you should not be doing this, first, because the endless character assassination and insults and impugning of motives are unfair. Second because they are exaggerated and unjust. Third, because you discredit both serious discussion about the content of the topics and more broadly the idea of calm, rational discussion of a philosophy of reason.

When you engage in personalities, rather than the ideas those personalities stand for it cheapens the latter.

Back away from the anger. Put down the personal issues. Focus on the ideas.

(Have you not noticed what a sewer SoloP so often is. Robert, knowing that, why do you leave there...and then bring this sort of issues OVER HERE.)

Edited October 9, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

For a judgment about another person's motives to be dismissible as "psychologizing," it has to be unwarranted.

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

Robert, even if you could claim to have enough evidence and/or could see the motives inside the person's head, I was making additional points about the personal attacks. Including them being inappropriate both in the context of civility and in the context of a discussion of ideas.

Would you accept in JARS a piece attacking the vicious motives of a prominent commentator (pro or con) on Ayn Rand? What about in an academic journal in psychology?

[Brant Gaede]

Let him have it, Phil!

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

This is only "grudges" and "settling old scores" in your judgment. And you are wrong. I don't give a damn about that. It's a hell of a lot deeper.

Notice that Rowlands carried out a bunch of irrational stupid attacks on me on the same level as Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo and I don't rag him. Ditto Hsieh, and that's without even knowing me. I don't rag her. (She gets a hard time when she attacks, but in general, I don't rag her.) Ditto lots of people. You should see some of the gratuitous nasty things they write about me, mostly fundamentalists in addition to specific individuals on the Perigo and Rowlands forums. I don't rag them. Not like I do with this PARC issue.

Grudges are for kids.

I have a clear objective goal I am pursuing. Discredit the bullies who keep trying to damage productive people I care about. And I am branding my views as radically different than the bullies who use Objectivism as an excuse for scapegoating productive people and making personality cults. Here are the brands:

My brand of thinking (and I start from an Objectivist reference) = People of good will thinking for themselves.

Persecution Objectivism = Bullies using Rand to form personality cults, enforce party lines, scapegoat targets chosen by a leader or leader wannabe and viciously attack people who get near, then stray from the tribal groupthink.

I'll do what it takes to discredit the bullies and brand my thinking as different from as theirs. I have no intention of walking away.

Actually, I am making an impact. Important people read this forum and I doubt any of them currently confuses my thinking with that of Perigo. Also, he is the one being discredited in the marketplace of ideas. He is generally seen in the Objectivist-libertarian subcommunity as a laughingstock. I fully intend to do my share to keep it that way, at least for now. If I (and others) don't do that, look at the damage this jerk does to productive people out of sheer hatred and vanity.

I have not discussed this with Robert, but I sense he is on my wavelength. It's just that he is doing it his way.

The Stuttle mess is in function of that kind of thinking and those values. And only that.

Here is my conscious choice. If they stop, I stop. That's how it works.

Well... for the most part, anyway...

But that's because I don't believe they ever will stop.

And if they want to tangle, there's plenty to get. Bring it on. I want it.

You don't have to participate.

I don't even like the idea of you participating. Frankly, you're a liability in a fight, even for someone defending you. But I like you and the Persecution Objectivists are not competent enough for your liability to blow me out of the water.

I don't expect this explanation to make a dent in your thinking, either. So if you suspect that I writing this—not for you—but for the benefit of the readers, you would be correct.

btw - Robert can post anything he wants to here or anywhere else on OL.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

I can attest, from my limited excursions to Orthodox Objectivist fora and blogs, that ObjectivistLiving is widely referred to, by people with no past associations either here or at SOLO, as a "sewer," a nest of vipers, and a den of iniquity.

Not to mention, as the place from which "Molotov cocktails" are being lobbed at the Ayn Rand Institute.

So there is definitely a clash of subcultures going on. It isn't all about this individual or that one.

And when I encounter behavior from people with whom I am reasonably familiar that resists any plausible rational reconstruction, but can readily be accounted for, either on faith-based grounds or in terms of status enhancement within a tribe or group, I won't hesitate to engage in inference to the best explanation.

I have gotten tired of participating in SOLOP. Jabba himself is hopeless, and pretty soon no one else will be hanging around there except Ellen Stuttle, who is turning out not to be much better.

There are other projects I plan to pursue.

Robert Campbell

[Jerry Biggers]

The scheduled LAURA BURNS BOOK SIGNING and TALK AT BARNES & NOBLE in Bethesda, MD for Thurday, Oct. 15, has been CANCELLED. Call the store at 301-986-1761, if you want further confirmation.

The next scheduled Book signing and talk in the D.C. area will be at the Cato Institute in D.C. on Wednesday, October 28 (pre-registration required 202-789-5229).

There are also some talks in Virginia. Check Dr. Burns' website for details. Her website address was given earlier in this thread.

[Robert Campbell]

Jerry,

I'm not sure which is cause and which is effect, but on Thursday October 15, Jennifer Burns is now scheduled to appear on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/guests

Robert Campbell

[Chris Grieb]

Jerry,

I'm not sure which is cause and which is effect, but on Thursday October 15, Jennifer Burns is now scheduled to appear on The Daily Show with John Stewart:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/guests

Robert Campbell

Robert; Thanks for the tip about the Daily Show.

People who don't pre-register can come to Cato events. I have a feeling there will be a big crowd for the Anne Heller & Jennifer Burns event so you may want to get there early.

[Jerry Biggers]

In my post # 218, I mistakenly referred to Jennifer Burns as "Laura" Burns (I don't know where that came from!). My apologies to Professor Burns.

Robert, Thanks for the "heads-up" on Jennifer Burns appearing on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" on Thursday. That should prove...well, interesting. I can't imagine Jon Stewart discussing Rand in a serious way, since his stock-in-trade is mocking and caricaturing his targets, which are usually right-of-center. My guess is that he will concentrate on the Rand/Branden affair and breakup and/or other eccentricities.

[Chris Grieb]

In my post # 218, I mistakenly referred to Jennifer Burns as "Laura" Burns (I don't know where that came from!). My apologies to Professor Burns.

Robert, Thanks for the "heads-up" on Jennifer Burns appearing on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" on Thursday. That should prove...well, interesting. I can't imagine Jon Stewart discussing Rand in a serious way, since his stock-in-trade is mocking and caricaturing his targets, which are usually right-of-center. My guess is that he will concentrate on the Rand/Branden affair and breakup and/or other eccentricities.

Jerry; Let's watch the show and see what happens. Jon Stewart has been making fun of Obama lately so it may not be

an attack.

Let's not treat Ayn Rand like a delicate orchid.

[bmacwilliam]

I don't think Rand was a mess or generally narcissistic despite this stretch of weakness at a horrible time in her life, but if my only contact with her writing and history were those diary entries, I definitely would think so.

I read Rand, not as young person, but as an adult. I think this is important because I think I am able to examine the content more dispassionately perhaps.

As you are aware, I am interested in some of her core ideas and related and competing viewpoints, but a Rand fan I am not. "Narcisstic frightful mess" is a dead-on accurate characterization and her writing is chock full of this - and I have never even read those diary entries you speak of.

It's not a valid argument to say she couldn't be that bad because her books still sell. That's irrelevant. Being a complete mess probably ADDS to book sales.

My point is that "narcisstic, frightful mess" is hardly even an opinion, it's just a fact.

[Robert Campbell]

Bob M,

Your use of "frightful mess" is just as objectionable as Ellen Stuttle's.

"Frightful mess" isn't a diagnostic category. It has such a vague meaning as to be eminently manipulable. It's custom-made to support fudging, foozling, and specious reasoning.

"Narcissistic" does have some kind of meaning.

What, in your opinion, constitutes evidence of narcissistic tendencies on Rand's part?

Robert C

[bmacwilliam]

Bob M,

Your use of "frightful mess" is just as objectionable as Ellen Stuttle's.

"Frightful mess" isn't a diagnostic category. It has such a vague meaning as to be eminently manipulable. It's custom-made to support fudging, foozling, and specious reasoning.

"Narcissistic" does have some kind of meaning.

What, in your opinion, constitutes evidence of narcissistic tendencies on Rand's part?

Robert C

First of all I don't want to descend into all out Rand-bashing because I certainly do have a sincere interest in the ideas and bashing for the sake of bashing is pointless. That being said, as a person, well more accurately as a personality, because I have never met her - that which I can discern from her work anyway - I find her a raging narcissist.

So...

Evidence:

Extremely hostile to criticism

Addiction issues (nicotine, but other stuff too - diet pills or something?)

As far as I can tell empathy was more or less absent from her life (well maybe Hickman an exception)

Extreme and inappropriate criticism of other philosophers

Huge inflated sense of self-importance

Her conduct wrt the affair

I could go on. Honestly, I find it very puzzling that this isn't obvious to everyone that has read even a small portion of her writing and her history. And again, the ideas are of interest to me but other than that I find her narcissistic in the extreme.