| | James,
My aim has been not to get into close analysis of your book on this thread. PARC is primarily about the character of Ayn Rand, and the character of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden.
I'd prefer to keep the focus on what you also say is the more important matter: Ayn Rand's ideas and responsible appreciation or criticism of them.
However, you keep right on claiming that I haven't read your book carefully, so I will address two points here:
(1) I referred to Jerome Tuccille's 1971 book, It Usually Starts with Ayn Rand, to show that Tuccille has been playing fast and loose with the facts about Rand and her associates for 34 years. Back then, the prime source for his caricature of Rand appears to have been Murray Rothbard, though he was obviously taking liberties even with what Rothbard told him.
By mentioning only Tuccille's recent biography of Alan Greenspan (see Larry Sechrest's unflattering review of it in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies) and not his 1971 book, PARC gives the impression that Tuccille needed the Brandens' books to incite him to hatchet-jobbery. Er no, he obviously didn't. His animus against Rand, and his preference for satire or lampoon over reporting where she is concerned, were well documented 15 years before NB and BB's books were published.
(2) Your pages 1 and 2 just don't do all that good a job of clarifying the boundaries between responsible and irresponsible criticisms of Rand--or between hatchet-jobs on Rand written before the Brandens' books came out, and hatchet-jobs written afterward.
The single quote you provide, on pp. 1-2, from James Arnt Aune, alludes to three charges against Rand. The third is about her private life. It could not have been made before Barbara Branden's book was published.
The first and second are that Randians remain fixated in adolescence, and that Rand was authoritarian. Those two charges were widely made before there were any public revelations of Rand's affair with Nathaniel Branden.
Now, just what do the Brandens' books have to do with the charge of arrested development?
The Brandens did, of course, charge Rand with authoritarianism, and you devote considerable effort to refuting them on that score.
But suppose (as I assume you would maintain) that every anecdote that's ever been told about Rand's alleged authoritarian attitudes is exaggerated or obviously false or merely untrustworthy. Then the inquiry needs to turn to her published writings and recorded speeches... which is presumably what you think ought to be done in any case.
Now, back to the ARI business.
No doubt you are grateful to ARI for selling your book.
And I agree with you that LFB ought to be selling your book. I'm not intending this as a left-handed compliment... but they've sold Jeff Walker's book, so precisely on what grounds would they exclude PARC?
However, ARI is a significant institutional presence in Rand-land; ARI has a distinctive agenda regarding Rand scholarship, particularly the kind that is done by non-Peikovians, or that is critical of any of Rand's ideas; and you say that serious appreciation and discussion of those ideas is what you after.
So it won't do to say that ARI is no worse than the rest. Not when you haven't specified what bad things you believe other people or groups might have done, or what bad things you believe ARI and its principals might have done--or indicated why any negative impacts that might emanate from ARI, or from the others, aren't such a big deal.
What's more, ARI is widely viewed as, well, punitive in its treatment of Randians who criticize it in public.
I very much understand why you may prefer to keep quiet about ARI, and keep the focus on your book. But that isn't going to make the ARI question go away.
Robert Campbell
(Edited by Robert Campbell on 9/23, 7:32am)
|
|
