I see nothing positive. Instead, it has been a catalyst for driving another wedge between the Objectivist community, polarizing factions and generating nothing but rancor. I have not heard of one report where it has created a more positive view of Ayn Rand in the eyes of the general public nor has it furthered the acceptance of Objectivism in any way. It puzzles me as to what others are deriving from it. Those that praise it seem to simply be using it as a platform to justify and bolster their dislike for other individuals. Well, I don't need that.
I think that The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics is worth reading, on account of Rand's previously unpublished journal entries, what they reveal about her, and (very occasionally) what they reveal about Nathaniel Branden.
Otherwise, I see little of positive value in it. Unless, that is, you want to test your patience with circa 200 pages of being told what to think and how to think it, when your own independent judgment of the evidence will almost certainly lead you into sharp disagreement with what you're being told.
I have no sympathy at all with those who condemned the book before it was published. And I continue to recommend refraining from judgments about the book unless you have read it. But what Mr. Valliant has done since his book was published does tend to bear out your suspicions.
I've yet to see any evidence that PARC is being read by people who are not already sympathetic to Rand's views, or that it is altering the way that she is seen by the non-Objectivist public. A little of what PARC reveals--I have in mind the amateur psychotherapy sessions that Rand was in the habit of conducting--could come back to hurt her reputation, not enhance it.
Instead, Mr. Valliant, his allies, and his followers have used PARC as a weapon against other Randians. Against The Objectivist Center, against Chris Matthew Sciabarra, against the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, against any other person or organization that the adepts of the Ayn Rand Institute would deem an "enemy of Objectivism."
Mr. Valliant has claimed that he wrote the book to clear the way for wider appreciation of Ayn Rand's ideas, and genuine dialogue concerning them. But since he published the book, he has done absolutely nothing to promote either of those alleged goals. Instead, he has gotten caught up in factional intrigue.
I've yet to see evidence that Mr. Valliant understands Ayn Rand's ideas in any great depth. But I've seen plenty of evidence of his scheming to eliminate perceived rivals and assert personal dominance over "organized Objectivism." He has already ruthlessly discarded a one-time ally, Mr. Firehammer. I continue to doubt that his present alliances with Mr. Perigo and Ms. Hsieh and Mr. Maurone and others will bring him what he seeks--for one thing, those individuals may harbor ambitions that conflict with his own--but it won't be for lack of trying.
That's why Mr. Valliant keeps charging anyone who opposes him with being a puppet of "the Brandens." He imagines that everyone is caught up in backstage maneuvering the same way he is. So if someone speaks out against the claims he makes in PARC, that person must be plotting dirty work with NB or BB--if not merely carrying out their covert orders.