Ayn Rand and the World She Made

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

It's a free country. I just find it curious that once you were critical of Valliant's book as I was. Since Valliant apparently has done some archival work recently and claims to be tight with the archives, it would be interesting what he has to say.

-Neil Parille

I'm still critical of Valliant's book. I mean, how many times do I have to say that I think the book is badly done and needs a thorough editing overhaul?

That I came to think that past the bad execution, there are some legitimate points being made (also that the more significant overarching "point" of the thing is defending Rand, rather than the easily apparent criticizing the Brandens) doesn't mean I'm no longer critical of the book.

But unlike the situation with you, James Valliant's opus is not my hobby. (I'm reminded of a line I found very funny in *I, Claudius*, but I won't repeat it.)

Ellen

[Dragonfly]

I see nowhere a changed story. Barbara wrote about the earlier period (emphasis added):

It was not until years later that the truth about how Frank spent that afternoon and evening each week was revealed. He did go for a walk - just as far as the bar he frequented. He did visit with some of the men at the bar: they were his drinking partners. Frank had always enjoyed a drink or two in the evening - his powerful martinis were guaranteed to elicit gasps at the first sip by an unsuspecting guest - but now his drinking began to be a way of life, an escape from an intolerable reality.

A friend of Frank's - now a recovered alcoholic - who sometimes joined him for the drink or two which became three and four and five and more, was convinced that Frank was an alcoholic. None of the friends Frank shared with Ayn were aware, during these years, that he drank to excess. But much later drinking was to become a painful and explosive source of friction between Ayn and Frank.

Note that it is not Barbara who says that Frank was "an alcoholic", but Frank's friend. She also mentions in contrast that no one in the Rand circle was aware of his drinking, so the conclusion is that Frank did drink at the time more than was really healthy, but not so much that it became obvious to others. That a friend who had been an alcoholic himself saw the signs much sooner is not so surprising. As Barbara writes, it was only much later that his drinking became obvious to Rand and people around her and that then the conclusion that he'd become an alcoholic was obvious, so there was clearly a difference between the early and the late period. Which is of course not surprising at all and in no way contrary to what Barbara wrote later.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Dragonfly,

I do see a significantly changed story, indeed a different story between Barbara's later telling and the one in Passion. Also, you're leaving out in your interpretation above Heller's affixing the date when Ventura -- Barbara's witness -- met Frank to 1962 (thus requiring Jonathan's hypothesis that what Ventura was reporting about the mid-50s was things he heard from others who had been Frank's drinking companions then).

My current view is that Frank's drinking problem -- if indeed he drank enough even then for the drinking to be classified as "too much" -- didn't start until after he could no longer paint.

Since I think that going over the same material again would probably change none of the participants' opinions, I'll just leave it there.

Ellen

Edited January 25, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[Neil Parille]

Dragonfly,

It was not until years later that the truth about how Frank spent that afternoon and evening each week was revealed. He did go for a walk - just as far as the bar he frequented. He did visit with some of the men at the bar: they were his drinking partners. Frank had always enjoyed a drink or two in the evening - his powerful martinis were guaranteed to elicit gasps at the first sip by an unsuspecting guest - but now his drinking began to be a way of life, an escape from an intolerable reality.

A friend of Frank's - now a recovered alcoholic - who sometimes joined him for the drink or two which became three and four and five and more, was convinced that Frank was an alcoholic. None of the friends Frank shared with Ayn were aware, during these years, that he drank to excess. But much later drinking was to become a painful and explosive source of friction between Ayn and Frank.

Barbara said in 2006:

but I left in 1968, and I've been told that his really debilitating drinking began after that time.

One could infer that if Frank's "really debilitating drinking began after that time" that prior he could not have been an alcoholic nor could his drinking have been a "way of life." However, in 2006 Barbara also said that Don Ventura considered Frank a "fellow-alcoholic."

-Neil Parille

Edited January 25, 2010 by Neil Parille

[Robert Campbell]

I'm still critical of Valliant's book. I mean, how many times do I have to say that I think the book is badly done and needs a thorough editing overhaul?

That I came to think that past the bad execution, there are some legitimate points being made (also that the more significant overarching "point" of the thing is defending Rand, rather than the easily apparent criticizing the Brandens) doesn't mean I'm no longer critical of the book.

If Mr. Valliant made some significant errors in his book, and he keeps on refusing to admit having made them, how much credibility does he have on any issue that the book attempts to cover?

How effective a defender of Ayn Rand could he be?

And why would Ms. Stuttle pretend, as she recently did on SOLOP, to be flattered by his praise?

I am not so naïve as to need to ask whether Ms. Stuttle likes, respects, or admires Mr. Valliant.

I expect she despises him at least as thoroughly as she despises the participants on this board.

But I do wonder how she expects Mr. Valliant's cooperation and support to be useful, in the particular ball game that she is playing.

Robert Campbell

[9thdoctor]

(I'm reminded of a line I found very funny in *I, Claudius*, but I won't repeat it.)

No, no, no, no, no, you can’t make a reference like that without spelling it out. I’m guessing it’s from this segment. Chilling how much Caligula looks like JV.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wg4G0C4pmE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wg4G0C4pmE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wg4G0C4pmE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Too bad the soundtrack isn’t in sync.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have never insinuated some kind of friendship which didn't exist. I've stated exactly the circumstances under which I talked to Allan, with whom I talked a lot of times about psychological issues and about music and Rand's tastes in music in the first half of the '70s when I was taking courses with him, and with whom I talked numerous times post his and Joan's break with Ayn. The only things I recall ever mentioning Joan saying were either via report from Allan, in his description of why he and Joan broke with Ayn, or via what Barbara wrote in Passion, or quotes from Joan's Full Context interview, and a mention of how I remember that the last session of the post-break course I took with Allan occurred just after the 1980 election (I remember he and Joan making some remarks about Reagan's speech).

Again, 'tisn't my fault if you acquired an impression from not reading carefully.

Stuttle,

You still don't get it, and I believe that this is from your own lack of reading carefully.

I don't care about what you say. You blah blah blah all over the place all the time, often hair-splitting over nothing just so you can say you were not wrong when you were wrong. What you say varies with the wind blowing.

I judge what you do.

It's not what you say, it's what you do that I find disgusting.

Is there any clearer way to say this for you to read it and understand it?

I've said it many times and it always escapes you.

As for the rest, despite all your blah blah blah, I stand by everything I wrote.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I see nowhere a changed story. Barbara wrote about the earlier period (emphasis added):

It was not until years later that the truth about how Frank spent that afternoon and evening each week was revealed. He did go for a walk - just as far as the bar he frequented. He did visit with some of the men at the bar: they were his drinking partners. Frank had always enjoyed a drink or two in the evening - his powerful martinis were guaranteed to elicit gasps at the first sip by an unsuspecting guest - but now his drinking began to be a way of life, an escape from an intolerable reality.

A friend of Frank's - now a recovered alcoholic - who sometimes joined him for the drink or two which became three and four and five and more, was convinced that Frank was an alcoholic. None of the friends Frank shared with Ayn were aware, during these years, that he drank to excess. But much later drinking was to become a painful and explosive source of friction between Ayn and Frank.

Note that it is not Barbara who says that Frank was "an alcoholic", but Frank's friend. She also mentions in contrast that no one in the Rand circle was aware of his drinking, so the conclusion is that Frank did drink at the time more than was really healthy, but not so much that it became obvious to others. That a friend who had been an alcoholic himself saw the signs much sooner is not so surprising. As Barbara writes, it was only much later that his drinking became obvious to Rand and people around her and that then the conclusion that he'd become an alcoholic was obvious, so there was clearly a difference between the early and the late period. Which is of course not surprising at all and in no way contrary to what Barbara wrote later.

Dragonfly,

I find it so weird that some people find this more-than-obvious understanding implausible.

Whatever motivates these people, a correct understanding of what Barbara meant is not within their intentions.

It's almost comical to see the reactions of newcomers to the War of Frankian Sobriety when they see people stretch Barbara's words all out of recognition and give this as "proof" that she wanted to attack Rand. One after another, I have seen them express exasperation that someone could come to that conclusion from reading Barbara's words and disbelief that the accusers are serious.

That's usually right before they judge Objectivists as loons.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen, I admire the way you keep a level voice on the ad hominem Objectivist battlefield, but exegesis is not testimony or scholarship which requires years of dedicated focus. You have some testimony--more than I do--but everybody does their own evaluations and interpretations so its not stuff for the ages. We are now entering the fifth year of incalculable damage to Objectivism caused by PARC out of Peikovian animadversion upon Barbara Branden with Perigo hatred as an afterburner all of which has left Barbara's story about Rand essentially unchanged as the most favorable one available unless Rand as an icon has more value than Rand as who she was. If not for Barbara people who never knew or saw Rand in the flesh would have little understanding of her that way.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Gimme a break.

PARC damaged Objectivism?

A book that sold maybe 3,000 copies through a subsidy press?

Where did it damage Objectivism?

Or promote Objectivism?

Or anything outside of a small snarky subcommunity?

Where?

PARC has as much effect on the world as a burp in a wind storm.

btw - I'm glad you admire level-headed people who viciously attack Barbara by twisting things around and join an online lynch mob against her. I guess somebody has to admire those haters when they are level-headed. I know I don't.

Michael

[RightJungle]

This is addressed to Michael Stuart Kelly or other "Experienced" Rand Fans:

I am sorry to change the subject, but I have a question and nowhere else to ask it. Are you familiar with Thomas Sowell's body of work? If so, is he a real world economist like von Mises and George Reisman or not? I was thinking about getting his book, "Intellectuals and Society", but I'm very gun shy about anyone that Sean Hannity likes. Thanks for any info.

Also, what is PARC?

Edited January 25, 2010 by Mary Lee Harsha

[jriggenbach]

This is addressed to Michael Stuart Kelly or other "Experienced" Rand Fans:

I am sorry to change the subject, but I have a question and nowhere else to ask it. Are you familiar with Thomas Sowell's body of work? If so, is he a real world economist like von Mises and George Reisman or not? I was thinking about getting his book, "Intellectuals and Society", but I'm very gun shy about anyone that Sean Hannity likes. Thanks for any info.

Also, what is PARC?

Mary Lee -

Thomas Sowell is a real world economist. He is brilliant, and he writes very well. He is at his best, actually, in his works on history.

PARC is an abbreviation for The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, a book self-published a few years ago by an insufferable Los Angeles-area lawyer named James Valliant, who argues that everything Nathaniel and Barbara Branden have ever said about Ayn Rand is a self-serving lie.

And, by the way, Hitler's first name is spelled "Adolf." There is no "ph" for the "f" sound in German.

Best wishes,

JR

[Robert Campbell]

This is addressed to Michael Stuart Kelly or other "Experienced" Rand Fans:

I am sorry to change the subject, but I have a question and nowhere else to ask it. Are you familiar with Thomas Sowell's body of work? If so, is he a real world economist like von Mises and George Reisman or not? I was thinking about getting his book, "Intellectuals and Society", but I'm very gun shy about anyone that Sean Hannity likes. Thanks for any info.

Also, what is PARC?

Mary Lee,

The best overall exposition of Tom Sowell's view of economics is an older book of his called Knowledge and Decisions. If you want a one-word description, it's Hayekian.

Some of his books are more sociological than economic in orientation. Intellectuals and Society is in the same lineage as A Conflict of Visions and The Vision of the Anointed.

Just about everything that Tom Sowell has written is readable and clearly argued. He has published a book every year or two for a long time, so inevitably some of them overlap.

Robert Campbell

PS. PARC is the acronym that Jim Valliant and his followers use for his book The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case against the Brandens. In the references to her biography, Anne Heller insists on rendering it as TPOARC, which doesn't make for slogan material.

[Alfonso Jones]

This is addressed to Michael Stuart Kelly or other "Experienced" Rand Fans:

I am sorry to change the subject, but I have a question and nowhere else to ask it. Are you familiar with Thomas Sowell's body of work? If so, is he a real world economist like von Mises and George Reisman or not? I was thinking about getting his book, "Intellectuals and Society", but I'm very gun shy about anyone that Sean Hannity likes. Thanks for any info.

Also, what is PARC?

PARC = Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, an execrable book which purports to be an expose of the Brandens. Poorly written and researched by James Valliant. Not recommended except as an example of poor writing and research.

Thomas Sowell - interesting economist. Formerly a Marxist, now broadly an advocate of economic freedom. Fairly libertarian in outlook.

Bill P

[RightJungle]

Thank you for the help. I will go ahead and get the book(s). I read the Jim Valiant Book several months ago and just dismissed it as nonsense. I could not for the life of me come up with a Rand related title with those initials. Thanks. Did I say Adolph? Actually I kinda like the way that looks, but I'll make the shift to Adolf. Mary Lee

Edited January 26, 2010 by Mary Lee Harsha

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

Gimme a break.

PARC damaged Objectivism?

A book that sold maybe 3,000 copies through a subsidy press?

Where did it damage Objectivism?

Or promote Objectivism?

Or anything outside of a small snarky subcommunity?

Where?

PARC has as much effect on the world as a burp in a wind storm.

I agree with Michael about PARC having no discernible effect outside of Rand-land. It's done absolutely nothing out there. Not a single print review of the Burns or Heller volumes has mentioned it. The only discussions of Objectivism that have given it any attention, beyond OL and SOLOP, are those by Greg Nyquist and company.

Within Rand-land, I do think it has caused some damage. Even so, just a handful have claimed that they became zealots on account of PARC; most of its proponents were worshiping Rand before they read that book. But even Lindsay Perigo, who along with Leonard Peikoff is PARC's chief sponsor, would still be ranting against Barbara Branden had the book never existed.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mary,

I have only read a few things by Thomas Sowell, but from what I have read, and what I have read about him, my impression is that he is a brilliant economist.

PARC is a horrid book written by a Peikoff toady that proclaims that the Brandens are the root of all Rand-hatred when her affair with NB or anything personal about her life is mentioned by hostile critics. And it is premised on a vision of Rand as her being the greatest human being who ever lived (to paraphrase NB). The name of the book is The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics by James Valliant.

As people like Neil Parille, Robert Campbell, I and others have shown, the book is shot through with shoddy scholarship, incorrect allegations and facts, presumptions of meanings that are totally foreign to the writers discussed, syrupy fawning whenever Rand's name is mentioned, constant misquotes and out-of-context quotes and just plain wrong quotes, and on and on and on. All of this criticism of PARC is documented and proven with side-by-side comparisons with the sources Valliant quoted and/or discussed. To cap it off, PARC concludes with the allegation that Nathaniel Branden is a spiritual rapist.

Since this book was intended to defend the vision of the true-believer Objectivists by scapegoating the Brandens, it has received an enormous amount of online discussion among a very small group of people. I even have a separate section for these discussions on OL called PARC.

Ny own participation in these debates is due to my love of Barbara and my outrage that such boneheaded logic, deceptive and dishonest literary practices, outright malice and true-believer mentality is presented in the name of Objectivism. Not to mention the ever-present snarky tone.

The only redeeming quality of the book is that it presents Rand's own journal entries during the time she was breaking up with Nathanial, but they are abridged and edited by Valliant and he demands that people accept him on faith that he did not butcher them. As far as I know, no independent comparison has been possible between her notes and what he published as her notes.

Nowadays, one person or other gravitates to PARC, but almost always when they have a beef with Barbara or they are part of Lindsay Perigo's personality cult. He hates Barbara because she rejected him and his spite campaigns. That is the main reason why he embraced PARC, although he says it isn't.

The people surrounding PARC are quite malicious. They constantly post attacks on Barbara and Nathaniel. The only place they get any real traction, though, is the Solo Passion website. Outside of there (and a sproradic comment on an orthodox blog or two), they have done things like try to skew entries on Wikipedia (and that includes Valliant himself and his wife) to spread their hatred. But the site owners generally end up deleting the stuff and/or moderating/banning them. Amazon's policies are a bit more lax, so if you want to see them in action, you can go to the user book reviews of PARC (five stars), The Passion of Ayn Rand (one star), etc.

EDIT: My post crossed with several others.

Michael

[Selene]

Folks:

There was an old commercial spoken in those sonorous "conditioned" radio/TV voice that went something like ...

"And remember, Serutan spelled backwards is Natures."

<<<< damn I love YouTube

Has anyone noticed that PARC spelled backwards is...

C_ _ P.

I mean...

I'm just saying if the boot is on the other foot is there any PARC caught in the soles?

Actually, I do not have a problem with the boot being on the other foot, I just do not like the boot on my throat...

Adam

Edited January 25, 2010 by Selene

[Brant Gaede]

btw - I'm glad you admire level-headed people who viciously attack Barbara by twisting things around and join an online lynch mob against her. I guess somebody has to admire those haters when they are level-headed. I know I don't.

Michael

I said I admired the way she did something not that I admired her. I was also being more than a little sarcastic.

Since you know that PARC hasn't hurt Objectivism there's no point in asking me why I think that.

Obviously it's time to ban Ellen here since you're more pissed off at her than you've ever been at anyone since the VP episode as far as I can remember. It's because of her kissy kissy with JV on SOLOP that I haven't and won't post on any of LP's symposium threads and have all but completely stopped posting over there. I don't have a weak stomach but that was too much even for me.

--Brant

sorry I didn't jump up and down on Ellen for two paragraphs before I did the rest of my post and sorry I didn't make my sarcasm obvious enough to be recognized and sorry I addressed it to her instead of the third person, but I promise to reinforce my very negative default mind set concerning her person

[Dragonfly]

There is no "ph" for the "f" sound in German.

Incorrect. The "ph" is still used in German, for example in: Physik, Alphabet, Geographie, Phänomen, Phosphor. In general in words of Greek origin, although these can sometimes be also written with an "f" (Photo or Foto, Phantasie or Fantasie).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

You were being sarcastic?

Oops.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Thomas Sowell - interesting economist. Formerly a Marxist, now broadly an advocate of economic freedom. Fairly libertarian in outlook.

You can read Sowell’s columns here:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp

He’s one of the best writers out there.

"Thomas Sowell (our greatest comtemporary philosopher)"

-David Mamet

http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-03-11/news/why-i-am-no-longer-a-brain-dead-liberal/3

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If the Wikipedia affair were not enough, if anyone wants to see how sleazy and dishonest Valliant is in trying to skew public perception right as he is doing it, being caught red-handed so to speak, he is now "answering" Neil Parille's criticisms and even asking him questions. Valliant knows full well that Neil is banned and can't answer. There is even a full thread posted about it from several days ago.

See here and here for now for Valliant's crap. From the looks of things, more is coming.

Does Valliant imagine that people will read that and conclude that Neil didn't answer because he succumbed to Valliant's superior intellect?

What a piece of work.

Michael

[jriggenbach]

There is no "ph" for the "f" sound in German.

Incorrect. The "ph" is still used in German, for example in: Physik, Alphabet, Geographie, Phänomen, Phosphor. In general in words of Greek origin, although these can sometimes be also written with an "f" (Photo or Foto, Phantasie or Fantasie).

I should have written, "There is no 'ph' for 'f' sound in German, outside of a relative handful of words adopted whole (including spelling) from other languages."

JR

[Robert Campbell]

If the Wikipedia affair were not enough, if anyone wants to see how sleazy and dishonest Valliant is in trying to skew public perception right as he is doing it, being caught red-handed so to speak, he is now "answering" Neil Parille's criticisms and even asking him questions. Valliant knows full well that Neil is banned and can't answer. There is even a full thread posted about it from several days ago.

See here and here for now for Valliant's crap. From the looks of things, more is coming.

Does Valliant imagine that people will read that and conclude that Neil didn't answer because he succumbed to Valliant's superior intellect?

What a piece of work.

Michael

Yes, and to make matters worse, we don't even know whether Lindsay Perigo banned Neil and me from SOLOP strictly on his own initiative or because Jim Valliant requested the bans.

Robert Campbell