A Truth in Packaging Issue

[Robert Campbell]

It was just recently brought to my attention by Tibor Machan and Doug Rasmussen that the Robert Mayhew volume Essays on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is being promoted with false advertising.

Here's the Product Description:

This is the first scholarly study of Atlas Shrugged, covering in detail the historical, literary, and philosophical aspects of Ayn Rand's magnum opus. Topics explored in depth include the history behind the novel's creation, publication, and reception; its nature as a romantic novel; and its presentation of a radical new philosophy.

Sorry, but the first sentence is complete BS.

For reviews and comments, see

http://www.amazon.co...#R17UZSBB3U7005

Robert Campbell

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Ha, Ha!! Well, I guess we now know whose works ARI doesn't consider scholarly. They'll continue to do derivative work like this for the next fifty years. Copies in steel and concrete of copies in plaster of copies in marble of copies in wood...

Jim

[9thdoctor]

Copies in steel and concrete of copies in plaster of copies in marble of copies in wood...

Do you mean copies of Who is Ayn Rand? Page for page has anyone improved on it? And I wonder what definition of scholarly they think applies to this product of their hermetically sealed ingroup? I still look back on the Ronald Merrill book with fondness, I think I lent it out though, damn that's a bad habit.

[Robert Campbell]

It looks as though a mini-hornet's nest has been stirred up, over at amazon. I stress the prefix mini, as the ARIans are not known for producing novel arguments about anything.

Ron Merrill's book actually got a rough reception from the reviewer at IOS, as it was then called. That's unfortunate. Most of what he had to say has held up well.

Robert Campbell

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Copies in steel and concrete of copies in plaster of copies in marble of copies in wood...

Do you mean copies of Who is Ayn Rand? Page for page has anyone improved on it? And I wonder what definition of scholarly they think applies to this product of their hermetically sealed ingroup? I still look back on the Ronald Merrill book with fondness, I think I lent it out though, damn that's a bad habit.

Ninth,

I'm sure there are probably at least a few good essays in the book and I'm sure they are all tightly argued, but the effort when added to the mountain of robotically produced posthumous official Rand material shows a particularly narrow focus. In its intellectual efforts, ARI is doing its best to continue to be something Rand wasn't: boring.

Jim

[James Heaps-Nelson]

It looks as though a mini-hornet's nest has been stirred up, over at amazon. I stress the prefix mini, as the ARIans are not known for producing novel arguments about anything.

Ron Merrill's book actually got a rough reception from the reviewer at IOS, as it was then called. That's unfortunate. Most of what he had to say has held up well.

Robert Campbell

Robert,

I just went over there to see what you were talking about. I guess they've recruited an army of minions to give the thumbs down to any corrective comment the book might receive. Classic!

Jim

[Reidy]

Merrill, B. Branden and N. Branden weren't academics, so you might accurately rule their books out as scholarly studies, but not, e.g. Younkins. (Is everybody in the new anthology an academic?)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I wonder if the ARI folks will ever get it that this kind of dishonesty undermines their message to the general public by stamping HYPOCRITE all over it.

I have no problem with making a narrowly-focused study of Rand's work. It's good to have that and I have no doubt some of the people at ARI do great work in that vein.

But this blatant cult-like dishonesty in some of their ads and public pronouncements, and the typical attempt to skew voting results you now see on that Amazon reader reviews thread, among other backstage manipulation stuff, is a big turnoff for me. I have a hard time swallowing that crap and then listen to these people try to preach a philosophy of integrity.

I know the general public sees this. That's one of the big reasons Objectivism is fringe while Rand is mainstream.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael,

I agreed with most of what you said except for the last sentence. I think the major reasons Objectivism is still fringe are because it is radical and because it is hard. I could paraphrase the last sentence to read quantum electrodynamics is fringe, but Feynman is mainstream. The social manipulation and overassertive shock and awe approaches ARI employs don't overcome these difficulties. The reason Rand is mainstream is because Americans like individualists and they like interesting characters and Rand was both.

Jim

Edited March 8, 2010 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Selene]

I wonder if the ARI folks will ever get it that this kind of dishonesty undermines their message to the general public by stamping HYPOCRITE all over it.

I have no problem with making a narrowly-focused study of Rand's work. It's good to have that and I have no doubt some of the people at ARI do great work in that vein.

But this blatant cult-like dishonesty in some of their ads and public pronouncements, and the typical attempt to skew voting results you now see on that Amazon reader reviews thread, among other backstage manipulation stuff, is a big turnoff for me. I have a hard time swallowing that crap and then listen to these people try to preach a philosophy of integrity.

I know the general public sees this. That's one of the big reasons Objectivism is fringe while Rand is mainstream.

Michael

Correct Michael.

By the way State of Fear was a great book. I believe you thought highly of it also.

Adam

not a member of the PLM [Political Legal Media complex] , or the MIC [Military Industrial Complex]

Edited March 8, 2010 by Selene

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jim,

I am just going by what I hear and read, not from left-wing loons, but from ordinary people. The common perception is that Objectivism is a cult.

The people I have observed don't think that because they perceive the Objectivist philosophy as "radical" (in the good sense) or "hard." I have never heard anyone say that, like I imagine they would about, say, quantum electrodynamics. I haven't really discussed quantum electrodynamics with an ordinary person, but I can easily imagine such a person saying that he doesn't know anything about it.

I don't hear that statement much from ordinary people about Objectivism. Sometimes. But even when they do say it, these same people often say that Objectivism is a cult in the same breath. They hear stories of excommunications, they encounter snarky Objectivists, they read about Objectivists rewriting history, deifying Ayn Rand, skewing public surveys, cheating at Wikipedia, etc. The nuke 'em all, then ask questions faction also left quite a mark.

I have heard and read a lot about those things from ordinary outside-of-the-subculture people. Once in a while I will also hear them ask, "Didn't Ayn Rand have some kind of affair with a young guy or something?"

Rand-haters, of course, take these things much further. But I am simply talking about the public perception I have personally perceived.

This is getting a little better recently from the appearances of prominent Objectivists in the mainstream media, principally on Fox. But it is still in the air. Notice that prominent Objectivists in the mainstream usually discuss Ayn Rand, not Objectivism.

Most ordinary people I know of who have an opinion would be very happy indeed with Rand's ideas without the Objectivist movement.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim,

I am just going by what I hear and read, not from left-wing loons, but from ordinary people. The common perception is that Objectivism is a cult.

The people I have observed don't think that because they perceive the Objectivist philosophy as "radical" (in the good sense) or "hard." I have never heard anyone say that, like I imagine they would about, say, quantum electrodynamics. I haven't really discussed quantum electrodynamics with an ordinary person, but I can easily imagine such a person saying that he doesn't know anything about it.

I don't hear that statement much from ordinary people about Objectivism. Sometimes. But even when they do say it, these same people often say that Objectivism is a cult in the same breath. They hear stories of excommunications, they encounter snarky Objectivists, they read about Objectivists rewriting history, deifying Ayn Rand, skewing public surveys, cheating at Wikipedia, etc. The nuke 'em all, then ask questions faction also left quite a mark.

I have heard and read a lot about those things from ordinary outside-of-the-subculture people. Once in a while I will also hear them ask, "Didn't Ayn Rand have some kind of affair with a young guy or something?"

Rand-haters, of course, take these things much further. But I am simply talking about the public perception I have personally perceived.

This is getting a little better recently from the appearances of prominent Objectivists in the mainstream media, principally on Fox. But it is still in the air. Notice that prominent Objectivists in the mainstream usually discuss Ayn Rand, not Objectivism.

Most ordinary people I know of who have an opinion would be very happy indeed with Rand's ideas without the Objectivist movement.

Michael

Michael, I don't throw around the "C" word when it comes to Objectivism because I don't think it's true. When I think cult, I think Scientology, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh or Marshall Applewhite and sweatlodges. The Orthodox Objectivists I know don't go around ringing doorbells selling windchimes.

They do some multilevel marketing stuff with students trying to learn the philosophy. They won't teach you XYZ unless you agree to ABC. The real problem is that overtraining in philosophical analysis of any kind unbalances the diversity of your thinking and only each individual knows what overtraining is in their own case. I don't think Objectivism would be much more ascendant now if TAS were ascendant or Nathaniel Branden were ascendant or Rand herself found a fountain of youth and she were ascendant.

The Objectivist movement is starving for lack of intellectual oxygen. Objectivists don't embrace new ideas and verging concepts from other fields that could help them because they think philosophy is all important. Well they think that because that is most of what they do. And philosophy is all important at a very abstract level where everything can be commented on, but it can't be universally effective unless it reaches down into other fields appropriately.

Well, there are a whole host of intellectual revolutions going on that Objectivists will miss because they think philosophy is all important in the same way Aristotle did.

And the public will go to the economists and the scientists and the psychologists because they can be concrete.

Jim

Edit: I probably missed what you were getting at Michael, sure there are actions by Orthodox Objectivists that fail the public's smell test and they are of a certain kind and a certain pattern. But I think that much of the public rejects many of the basic tenets of Objectivism too and are fiercely resistant to the changes it represents.

Edited March 8, 2010 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Edit: I probably missed what you were getting at Michael...

Jim,

You did.

I was talking about public perception of Objectivism versus public perception of Ayn Rand. Not about whether Objectivism is a cult.

Objectivism is fringe to the public and Rand is mainstream.

That's just what it is. And I predict that this is just what it will remain.

Now I did give somewhere else a checklist of cult characteristics. The old guard of ARI met a little over half of those. The dishonesty I spoke of falls into that portion.

I really wish the ARI folks would start thinking about public perception. But true measurable public perception, not something they dream up in a personality cult bubble.

It's awfully hard for them to save the world (for whatever reason) if the world sees them as a cult--and they do dishonest stuff that fosters that image. Like, for instance, claiming on a book coming from that end that it is the first book by scholars... yada yada yada... when there are clearly other books already in print and on the market.

Why is there a push to think of these practices as innocent and blameless, or worse, normal? They aren't. It's wrong to lie to your readers about things like that. And even if you think it's OK to lie to your readers for propaganda purposes, you flush your credibility down the toilet by doing that.

I'm not against ARI. I am against ARI continuing the BS. They should knock it off.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Tore Boeckmann has now jumped in with an explicit endorsement of the Publisher's Description:

http://www.amazon.co...Mx38LGYKIL8DKEU

I think he may come to regret this, because up to now the ARIan commentators have pretended that the Publisher's Description is inconsequential and was merely whipped up by some flack at Lexington Books. (Paul Beaird has driven himself into a complete frenzy trying to disassociate everyone at ARI from the false claim.) They have either refused to endorse the description or tried to sidestep the issue.

Robert Campbell

[dan2100]

Tore Boeckmann has now jumped in with an explicit endorsement of the Publisher's Description:

http://www.amazon.co...Mx38LGYKIL8DKEU

I think he may come to regret this, because up to now the ARIan commentators have pretended that the Publisher's Description is inconsequential and was merely whipped up by some flack at Lexington Books. They have either refused to endorse the description or tried to sidestep the issue.

Robert Campbell

I don't know Tore, but I'm a bit skeptical of people who give five star reviews to everything they review. (Then again, it could Tore only reviews the stuff he absolutely loves.)

[Robert Campbell]

Dan,

Mr. Boeckmann's two Amazon reviews are both of books by Bob Mayhew. Both award the coveted 5 stars.

Several months ago, he passed a note to Amy Peikoff who passed it to Bosch Fawstin who posted it on SOLO, complaining that, like all of those other "commentators hostile to Ayn Rand and Objectivism," I was being grossly unfair to Bob Mayhew over his editing of Ayn Rand Answers.

I hadn't even started the "Rewrite Squad" thread yet.

I wonder whether Mr. Boeckmann has seen that.

Robert Campbell

[dan2100]

Dan,

Mr. Boeckmann's two Amazon reviews are both of books by Bob Mayhew. Both award the coveted 5 stars.

Several months ago, he passed a note to Amy Peikoff who passed it to Bosch Fawstin who posted it on SOLO, complaining that, like all of those other "commentators hostile to Ayn Rand and Objectivism," I was being grossly unfair to Bob Mayhew over his editing of Ayn Rand Answers.

I hadn't even started the "Rewrite Squad" thread yet.

I wonder whether Mr. Boeckmann has seen that.

Robert Campbell

Do you have the direct like to that SOLO post? And why does all of this not surprise me? Is it possible for Boeckmann to not see how ridiculous he looks?

[Robert Campbell]

Dan,

Here's Mr. Boeckmann's SOLO posting (via Mr. Fawstin):

http://www.solopassion.com/node/6847#comment-78951

Robert Campbell

PS. There was an error in Roger Bissell's transcription, which I alluded to on that same thread. You can see the corrected transcript here on OL. But my point (and Roger's) stands. Bob Mayhew has tampered extensively with Ayn Rand's spoken comments.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Edit: I probably missed what you were getting at Michael...

Jim,

You did.

I was talking about public perception of Objectivism versus public perception of Ayn Rand. Not about whether Objectivism is a cult.

Objectivism is fringe to the public and Rand is mainstream.

That's just what it is. And I predict that this is just what it will remain.

Now I did give somewhere else a checklist of cult characteristics. The old guard of ARI met a little over half of those. The dishonesty I spoke of falls into that portion.

I really wish the ARI folks would start thinking about public perception. But true measurable public perception, not something they dream up in a personality cult bubble.

It's awfully hard for them to save the world (for whatever reason) if the world sees them as a cult--and they do dishonest stuff that fosters that image. Like, for instance, claiming on a book coming from that end that it is the first book by scholars... yada yada yada... when there are clearly other books already in print and on the market.

Why is there a push to think of these practices as innocent and blameless, or worse, normal? They aren't. It's wrong to lie to your readers about things like that. And even if you think it's OK to lie to your readers for propaganda purposes, you flush your credibility down the toilet by doing that.

I'm not against ARI. I am against ARI continuing the BS. They should knock it off.

Michael

Michael,

Agreed. None of the high pressure practices of ARI are normal. And I could list a bunch more screwy things off the top of my head. But I think these things are a distraction. People in the open side of the movement point to them and say that's what's wrong with Objectivism and they've been doing that for 20 years. I say if you don't like it, compete. Put out innovative products, develop new strategies and carry them out.

I'm not worried about ARI because they don't do anything in areas that I'm deeply interested in, I don't socialize with many people that intersect with them and I generally think they are an intellectual dead end as far as developing new thought. I'm also not an activist so I'm happy if they can place more books in schools and show up on TV if they have a polished message.

Jim

[9thdoctor]

I just threw my hat in the ring, now there's 4 3-star reviews. I feel like I'm in really good company, too.

[Robert Campbell]

ND,

Nicely done. I'd wondered what Harry Binswanger signed on to do.

There is no longer any doubt about the origins of the Publisher's Description. Bob Mayhew showed up in person and took responsibility for it:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R7WDGE94LMEWG/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdMsgNo=4&cdPage=1&store=books&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx3W3MWMB0F17BN#Mx3W3MWMB0F17BN

I'll give Dr. Mayhew props for accepting responsibility.

But I wonder whether he and Mr. Boeckmann have any idea how arrogantly, imperiously, and sniffishly their pronouncements come across.

Robert Campbell

[9thdoctor]

I'd wondered what Harry Binswanger signed on to do.

Here’s the Binswanger piece, though I think it’s a little longer in the book.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3251

On balance the book is certainly worthwhile, and if you haven’t read Who is Ayn Rand? you’ll find it very enlightening indeed. In my review I focused on what would draw in the old timer.

Tore Boeckmann added a new review, it looks like his (hers?) went in right before mine. I praised one of Boeckmann’s contributions, so that looks funny.

“This is how these contemporary Objectivists practice the primacy of consciousness.”

[Robert Campbell]

ND,

Tore Boeckmann is a he.

I think his name is Norwegian.

Robert Campbell

[jeffrey smith]

I'd wondered what Harry Binswanger signed on to do.

Here’s the Binswanger piece, though I think it’s a little longer in the book.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3251

On balance the book is certainly worthwhile, and if you haven’t read Who is Ayn Rand? you’ll find it very enlightening indeed. In my review I focused on what would draw in the old timer.

Tore Boeckmann added a new review, it looks like his (hers?) went in right before mine. I praised one of Boeckmann’s contributions, so that looks funny.

“This is how these contemporary Objectivists practice the primacy of consciousness.”

I've read that Binswanger essay before. Rereading it again made me wonder--is this another book he felt able to condemn without needing to actually read it? I read it and had no problem "intuiting" its meaning. I suppose Dr. Binswanger would accuse me of being a member of the coterie of Joycean scholars. Well, I did take a course from his biographer, Richard Ellmann--but it wasn't on Joyce, it was on Yeats. So maybe I'm a half scholar.

If he had read it, he should have noticed it's a retelling of that well known piece of Platonic misanthropy, the Odyssey, with Bloom being Ulysses and Stephen Daedalus being Telemachus, and Molly Bloom being Penelope: and that it ends with one of the greatest affirmations of life in English literature.

Jeffrey S.

[Selene]

ND,

Tore Boeckmann is a he.

I think his name is Norwegian.

Robert Campbell

We should ask Reb!

http://www.rogerbissell.com/id11l.html

Adam