About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 120

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 4:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

No, I don't think it should be, and I don't think it was.  I think it was used to defend her. A very noble undertaking in my view.

Tom


Post 121

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 5:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jennifer,
     Human sauce, not Objectivism sauce. However, it is okay to throw in a magnum of Objectivism wine as long as you also throw in a quart of skeptical vinegar.:-)

--Brant


Post 122

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 6:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Rowland, how many times are you going to declare yourself through with this thread, only to continue to chime in soon thereafter?  Admit it - you're addicted to SOLO!  J
(Edited by Pete on 6/09, 6:13pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 123

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 6:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom,

Thank you for the answer. Since we are in agreement that an author's unpublished material should not be mutilated, but you do not believe that it was in this case and I do, this issue bears defining at the very least. There will be more coming shortly on what I define as mutilating unpublished material, although I have already gone over some items.

Despite my bias and yours, you are an honorable man and I believe you when you claim that defending Ayn Rand is a "very noble undertaking." That is precisely what I am doing here.

I do not think anything that obscures and/or contradicts the objective truth should be used to defend Ayn Rand - especially her, the champion of reason and objective reality. The facts will end up being disclosed over the years anyway. I consider anything that demeans or distorts her work to be an attack on her and her work's integrity. So, from that perspective, we are both engaging in a "very noble undertaking" by this very discussion, since we are both defending her as we honestly believe.

May reason and the facts prevail where we disagree.

Preliminarily, one point that I do consider to be a blatant mutilation of her unpublished material is where commentary was interjected from another person in the middle of Rand's sentences, and such commentary was formatted in bold to make it stand out.

Glenn Heppard made a very curious assertion to me on this that I already commented on, but I did not check it at the time:
Since you know their his notes because he tells readers what BOLD, [], and etc. mean, your question doesn't make any sense.
I do believe Glenn meant they're his notes instead of their his notes as he wrote. (Nitpick.)

But his claim that Valliant gave an explanation of editorial formatting and symbols ("BOLD, [], and etc.") got me running to his book to check, since I did not remember seeing this at all. I thumbed through the entire book, skimmed over all the extra footnotes at the end, and read a portion out of order from my own reading - page 191 to 199 - as this is where Valliant introduces the journals and discusses the light blue stationary Ayn Rand used and so forth - and page 199 is the first page I found where his practice of inserting commentary in bold occurred.

I have been unable to find where Valliant gives an explanation of why he chose bold formatting for his own words or what any editing symbols at all mean.

Can you help me, Glenn? Can you send me to the place in the book where Valliant gives the explanation you claim he gives? I would like to see what he has to say on this. Also, I like my own questions to make sense.

(btw - I use bold in my own writing to emphasize the thought behind a phrase I write.)

Michael

Post 124

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 6:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael, you wrote: "I have two biases, to tell the truth."

But you haven't with SOLO readers concerning Valliant's editing.


In post #105: "Did you notice that he included his commentary in the middle of Ayn Rand's own sentences? Not even at the end of paragraphs? And that he formatted them in bold to make sure that everyone understood just how important they were in relation to Ayn Rand's own words? Do these comments here seem to shout out at you? Well so do his, in the middle of Ayn Rands unpublished work being published for the first time."

Then again in #111: "I am strongly against putting the compiler's opinions in the middle of a great author's words."

And again in # 113: mutilating Ayn Rand's work by,"work was presented chopped up with running commentary in bold in the middle of my sentences."

And #115:"the use of bold is universally considered as making text stand out...Are you postulating that Valliant was not aware of such usage...He knew he was emphasizing his own word..."



Now what Valliant really did say:

On p.215: "Any editorial additions and comments have been made in bold and [within bold brackets]"--- Which is how its done in the printed English language.

Also, almost all are like these:
p.249 [i.e., Rand, by now, has been told that the Brandens' marriage is hopeless]

or p.340 [Here, Rand begins an extensive quotation of Branden's article]

or p.353 [Robert Stadler is a character in Atlas Shrugged, a brilliant scientist who "sells out"...]

Also the always mutilating: [his]  [of]  [ing]  [the]  and of course the bloody [after 1957]


Explain yourself Michael.














Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 125

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 7:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you Glenn,

Page 215 in the middle of the text. It is now marked. I haven't read that far yet and the way it is given, it is very hard to find by thumbing.

He gave no reason as to why he chose bold, however. Just that he did. The only justifiable use of bold I can see is Ayn Rand's own pagination. To repeat myself from before:

Funny, the use of bold is universally considered as making text stand out from the rest of the text to emphasize it, making it more important, not just differentiating it. At least that is the case everywhere else in the printed English language.

So let me see if I understand. Are you postulating that Valliant was not aware of such usage and that he merely made a non-traditional use of formatting as a stylistic whim?


As to the examples, I already find EVERY SINGLE ONE of the examples you used inappropriate to Rand's practices - she never would have allowed any of them to occur, especially in bold, while she was alive - under any circumstances.

However, there are several really inappropriate inclusions, and I, of course, will make a listing of the most inappropriate.

Since I have not read that far, one stands out on thumbing (page 375):

[although they are still speaking, notice that Rand regards the current state, at least since Branden's letter about "physicalism," as a "break"]

So the reader needs to be told to notice something? IN THE MIDDLE OF AYN RAND'S UNPUBLISHED WRITING BEING PUBLISHED FOR THE FIRST TIME?

Why? Why not a footnote? THAT is a mutilation - worse than the "bloody [after 1957]."

There are other instances.

Am I duly explained?

Michael


Post 126

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 8:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael: "Am I duly explained?" LOL

First you tell all of SOLO the book is, "a work flawed by an incorrect approach, a blatant ad hominem agenda and plain bad writing" and "he is guilty of the most sloppy scholarship" even though "I have not read the book yet."

Next you tell the SOLO community that Rand's work has been "mutilated," and "included his commentary in the middle of AR's own sentences""formatted them in bold"

But when you get caught, the brackets appear and you start channeling Ayn Rand, "she never would have allowed any of them to occur." You even give an example of your phony "mutilation" that proves my point.

Do you really thing SOLO members will think Ayn Rand talks about herself in the third person in her own notes. [...notice that Rand regards...] The fact that its in the context of the paragraph shouldn't stop you.

Yeah, I think you have explained yourself pretty clearly to everyone.



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 127

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 9:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I need help with all this.  I haven't read any of the Brandens' books, but I did see Showtime film adaption of The Passion of Ayn Rand.   I do not want to read the Valliant book until I've read all or most of the Brandens' books; I don't want to read a 'defense' until I see what 'charges' and 'attacks' have specifically been raised in the first place. 

However, having followed Objectivism for a few years, I am aware of a few basics (I think).  As I see it, here are (in no particular order) the controversial details which became public knowledge as of the Brandens' coming forward:

1. Rand and Nathaniel had a romantic relationship, and that this took place with the knowledge and consent of their spouses (this seems to be agreed upon by all parties now, but I'm aware that it was previously denied and labeled a 'vicious' lie by Peikoff and ARI)

2. Rand did not publicly reveal the whole truth behind her split with Nathaniel

3. Nathaniel concealed from Rand a relationship he was having with another woman (my understanding is that this is also generally agreed upon by all sides)

4. Rand was ruthless in the upholding of her ideas above all others, and therefore posessed an unreasonable level of a "you're-either-with-me-100%-or-else-you-are-nothing-but-evasive-and-corrupt" type of attitude

Are these not the main ideas that were brought into the discussion thanks to the Brandens?  Am I missing something else? If not, then please tell me which area the Valliant book takes to task.  My understanding is that everyone already takes 1 through 3 to be a given, anyhow.  So does the Valliant book seek to reverse number 4?  I'd appreciate some sort of clarification or summary, as I really don't feel like reading ANY of these books! 

(Edited by Pete on 6/09, 9:45pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 128

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 9:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete,
I suspect the topic may be irresistable in some ways, but here is my opinion:

It's of no valid interest to anyone but those who were personally involved, and perhaps their close friends, and I'm confident that at least two of those are sufficiently mature to have moved on to the extent that those who are not will have let them do so.
 


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 129

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 10:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glenn,

You can laugh at what YOU consider to be "phony mutilation" to your heart's content. After all, Ayn Rand is now represented by an heir who is allowing this kind of crap to happen.

The trend is for this to get worse over time. A precedent now has been set. But, hopefully, if enough people complain about it, her future works will have a happier fate.

If you would take the time to look into Rand's background, that is, if you have any interest at all in what Rand thought, you will find that she never permitted any comments, favorable, neutral or otherwise, to be inserted into her own words.

Of course, Ayn Rand's own wishes and behavior hold no value to you when you have an ax to grind, do they?

I will grant you, maybe "mutilation" is a strong word for what Valliant did. But check out Rand's own opinions about things like that and then see if "mutilation" does not accurately describe what she herself would have called it. I am merely following her example here. (Once again, check it out if you are interested. For some reason, I do not think her view on this means much to you.)

But this is just the start. More will come as I read. And my audience will probably expand beyond Solo once I get my objections more organized.

To tell the truth, I am trying to be objective with this reading - to hold in the reins on my own bias. For as much as I want to lampoon this work - especially because of Valliant's grossly excessive amount of snide innuendo during the narrative (even in the footnotes at the end), nothing at all will be served by abandoning the facts. Where Valliant makes a point, he will be given credit. Where he indulges in a habit of inappropriate insinuations, he will be given credit. Where he is plainly wrong, he also will be given credit.

You asked the question (btw - without a question mark and misspelling "think" - Freudian slip?):

Do you really thing [sic] SOLO members will think Ayn Rand talks about herself in the third person in her own notes[?]
Is that your justification for doing what she shunned and condemned all her life? To me that is not a proper justification. Ayn Rand's unpublished work should be respected and given the same treatment she would have approved of and/or given it.

Laughing this off shows YOUR lack of respect for Ayn Rand's work.

As far as my objections to the book that you quoted go,

(1) "a work flawed by an incorrect approach, a blatant ad hominem agenda and plain bad writing"
Yup. What little I have read so far bears this out completely. (sigh) There is way too much left, but I promise will finish this thing.

(2) "he is guilty of the most sloppy scholarship" 
I was referring specifically to the way in which Rand's own unpublished writing was treated. Actually Valliant is a good researcher. I also stated this very clearly in the posts where you culled my quotes. Pay attention. This observation is there.

But in addition to the improper treatment of Rand's work, it is his one-sidedness in presenting the facts with a slant that flaws his scholarship. (I will elaborate on this in my review.)

(3) "I have not read the book yet."
I am now reading it. (yawn - a true labor of love)

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 6/10, 12:06am)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 130

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 11:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete,
4. Rand was ruthless in the upholding of her ideas above all others, and therefore posessed an unreasonable level of a "you're-either-with-me-100%-or-else-you-are-nothing-but-evasive-and-corrupt" type of attitude

(...)

So does the Valliant book seek to reverse number 4? 
Yup.

But Valliant wants to go one step further. He proposes that the main reason this reputation exists is due to the books by the Brandens. Here is a quote from the beginning of his opus (page 2) objecting to critics calling Rand "uncivil and 'peculiarly authoritarian'":
The principal cause for this particular form of of Rand-bashing, the root of this trend, can be traced to two persons: Nathaniel and Barbara Branden.
The first book, The Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden came out in 1986, so according to Valliant's thesis, since the Brandens were the "root of this trend," then Ayn Rand simply was not considered as authoritarian before that.

Silly, I know. But he wrote a long book trying to prove that and some other crap. Some research is now in order to refute that kind of silliness. He also laced his narrative constantly with suppositions about the Branden's "real" intentions.

What he really proved (from what I can see so far) was that Nathaniel Branden lied about the affair with Patrecia to Ayn Rand for several years, that Barbara helped in the end, and that Ayn Rand was a great artist and philosopher and a complex person. (Sound familiar from somewhere, or is all this something new to you?) On this "complex person" part, he states on page 16:
A personality can be complex - it can even contain contradictory elements - especially the personality of a creative artist like Ayn Rand.

So Valliant helps us to see that Ayn Rand's personality contained "contradictory elements."

He also did the donkey work of checking up on facts like dates and so forth, giving the correct ones that were wrong in the books by the Brandens (and conveniently not mentioning how many were right). Some nice pictures. He spends two whole pages right before the end trying to attribute Nathaniel Branden with the "psychology of a rapist" (Valliant's words) as his "motive," despite Branden's "behavior" admittedly being very different.

I'm still reading the book, so there are other qualities and defects that I will be able to mention later.

From what I am seeing so far, if you took out all the innuendo and crap like that, you could probably cut the book in half. It might then even be a decent book. But I don't know. This is not a book about love for Ayn Rand. It is about hatred for the Brandens.

Anyway, Pete, what all the yelling is about is that some people want to scapegoat the Brandens with all - yup, every one - of the shortcomings of the Objectivist movement and they think that Valliant's book will prove it for them.

We shall see.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 6/10, 12:02am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 131

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 7:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My definitive (of course) philosophical pronouncement on this never-ending and never-to-be resolved argument:

(Yawn.)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 132

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 7:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I suppose the Brandens have met their "end" now that the book is out?

Post 133

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 8:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good one John!

Post 134

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 9:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete,

LOL  :-0)

Not addicted, I don't think....hmmmm

But I have always enjoyed a good fight (I was going to qualify that but what the hell, it's true as it stands)...

And there is this MSK dogging my tail..

Tom (member DLB)

(Edited by Tom Rowland on 6/10, 9:09am)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 135

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 9:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert B,

I totally agree that this a yawn. I'm 34 years old and this stuff happened 3 years before I was born. Once people make a reasonable effort to sort this out for themselves, they should move on to philosophical topics. Some Objectivists hold grudges longer than my grandmother who wouldn't see her brother for 40 years over a dispute about WWII gas ration tickets. Well, the personal events leading up to 1968 are Objectivism's gas ration tickets. Let's get over it and move on to bigger and better things.

Jim 


Post 136

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 9:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete,

You've got what everyone agrees to. But there are "little" things that everyone doesn't agree to.

1. [as you wrote it] and the whole thing ruined everyone's life to some extent, particularly Frank's who became an alcoholic. And it was all pretty much (despite the "voluntary consent" <<-- note the scare quotes) caused by Rand's rationalistic manipulation of the situation to get what she inappropriately wanted.

2. [as you wrote it] because she was afraid for her public image and because Branden had rejected HER.

3.[as you wrote it] and Rand  was jealous of this relationship when she found out about it and this relationship, not the lying, where the primary reason for the split.

Most of Valliant's book is aimed at this -- not #4.  #4 is contradicted by a host of material already published in the Journals and Letters as well as various posts on various sites about her attitudes toward people (Peikoff's love of Beethoven and Mozart, for example) See also a recent post about her desire for honesty on my blog at www.tomrowland.blogspot.com  She was an absolutist in morals but not in her desire for absolute agreement as a condition of friendship.  She made a strong distinction between "errors of knowledge" and "errors of morality" (pretty much continuing any conversation where she thought there was honest disagreement until she determined that argument was useless, and even then in some cases, if she thought that the mistakes did not constitute "riding on her reputation" dishonestly and her opponent still treated her in a friendly way).

Rand did not, to my knowledge, ever make the immediate leap that you suggest in #4. And in that sense, Valliant is dealing with #4 in the second half of the book. 

My blog, by the way, is a new thing so pretty sketchy right now.

Tom


Post 137

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 10:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Affair and The Break are always going to get talked about- I don't see that ever stopping. Everyone loves a scandal, even one with dust bunnies.

What doesn't get talked about much is that AR clearly started this trainwreck. As the senior diva in charge, she condoned, rationalized, and ramrodded a businesslike affair that required consent of the respective spouses, who were understandably persuaded and compelled to cave in. This is psychological and  slow death, and sanctioned emotional torture, delivered under the guise of being reasonable, rational adults. It was about getting what was wanted.  It was a mistake of judgment, and as a leader she should have never under any circumstances created such a scenario. Had she not done it, the outcome could have been very different. Next down the organizational chart as far as responsibility went would be NB, who I believe has said as much, one way or another. Leonard became the new Chosen One because AR did what scorned people do. That NB went underground during the whole thing isn't suprising- affairs, be they this weird-ass kind or otherwise, drive behaviors underground- it is what they are about, whether she thought their elevated Olympian selves could handle one, or not. Affairs involve two people, one or both of whom are currently in an exclusive relationship with other people. Affairs are about people wanting to fuck, how you package it (we're so close, our minds are blah blah, we are working together on a great undertaking blah blah, soul mates blah blah) is just the rationale of how you're selling it to yourself or someone else. It's about fucking, folks- and either not telling who you're with what you're up to, or believing your own b.s. to the point that you think you can tell your partner that you're going to be fucking someone else, and it's all gonna be alright! In this case, it was the "let's just face the facts and handle it like adults" sell. Wrong answers from Barbara and Frank! Right answers= My attorney will be contacting you.

As far as Valliant goes, to my knowledge he never answered what at least I asked him:

1. Why didn't you request an interview with the Brandens? That kind of, uh, would make sense, and please don't jerk my gherkin about maintaining some kind of distanced, objective eye, which leads me to...

2. Will you or will you not disclose the nature of any conversations with the ARI regarding obtaining access to the journals? And that means any coversations- you know, mutual purposes, and so on...  Of course not! Even if you put heavy filtration on it, it would at least be something.

So if you ever feel like coming to Jeah-suz, James, just ask for Mr. Blue, I'll be holding my breath, waiting for you.  

(Edited by Rich Engle on 6/10, 10:33am)


Post 138

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 10:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
All who yawn,

Yes these "personal relationships" of "long years past" are of secondary importance to the philosophical ideas that Rand discovered. But if those ideas are important, they deserve to be put into action.

I contend that Rand's reputation as a person is important as well, particularly as that reputation is used by some to disparage her achievement or to excuse their own dishonesty about who they are and what they believe.  If she was a moralistic, dogmatic absolutist, who was callous in her intolerance of opinions that were not hers, then there is room for a disaster like "Benefits and Hazards".

In the case of the Brandens I am not, if they are culpable, willing to just forgive and forget for the sake of a philosophy that  warns against forgiveness and that looses its entire meaning if divorced from action.

Tom (member DLB)

See, for example, post #137 for another disaster.

(Edited by Tom Rowland on 6/10, 10:36am)


Post 139

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 10:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom,

Forgiveness is not required. When I go to TOC seminars, I simply don't go to a Nathaniel Branden talk if the topic is Ayn Rand.

Jim


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.