| | Phil,
Good answer. I feel your pain. After all, on the basis of the evidence so far provided about the incident in the post, we can't for sure say whether the "request" met all of your requirements or not.
Michael,
I understand your questions, but what is the point?
The received wisdom on this site is that Barbara Branden has every right to use Ayn Rand's words and tapes and actions to support her claim that "the dogmatic absolutism of her certainty, the blinding conviction of her own rectitude and her special place in the world, the callousness of her intolerance for opinions that were not hers, the unwavering assurance that she was alone to know the truth...was...the fuel for the height of achievement she attained." (Page 329-330)
Yes, she is making the claim as I have stated it, and the fact that she formulates it in the form of a question ("one must wonder if"), is very clever but doesn't hide the fact that she believes that Ayn Rand was a dogmatic absolutist, intolerant of opinions not hers, and unwavering in her assurance that she was alone to know the truth, and that (the bone she offers to fans) all of these obviously terrible things fueled her great achievement, so it's OK. (If you want a summary of the received view, reading page 327-330 is a good place to start)
And that's just part of the story the Brandens tell, all of it their interpretation of Rand's words, tapes and actions, that you claim (at least as far as the words are concerned) should be allowed to stand by themselves. Of course, the net cast by the Brandens includes the assumption, due no doubt to proximity and implied consent, that the Brandens' interpretation is not a biased, agenda-driven interpretation at all; it just simply IS the words, tapes and actions speaking for themselves. In effect, Rand was channelling through the Brandens.
Along comes Valliant, saying that these claims are false, that Ayn Rand was not the woman portrayed by the Brandens, and what is the result? Uproar, vilification, accusations of bias and agenda-driven whitewashing by the gang at ARI, inappropriate use of Rand's written words that should speak for themselves, ad hominem, name calling. My God, man, you'd think someone was attacking Ayn Rand (irony, in case you missed it)
I've had enough. It's clear that in any contest between Branden's interpretation and Valliant's, Branden's wins, no matter what the facts, no matter what access to new information demonstrates, you just aren't going to look.
I call that evasion. What do you call it?
Tom
PS, don't bother to bring up the supposed evasion at ARI of Barbara's book. Some of the ARI gang read it, some didn't, no one was excommunicated for READING anything, If anyone was excommunicated in this connection it was for writing a favorable review, which, in light of the evidence, seems to me to be a perfectly justified reaction. As to denying the affair, I guess Peikoff didn't consider Branden and Branden to be reliable witnesses under the circumstances. When Rand's written words spoke, he listened. I know that all of the negative books have been read and are on the shelves at ARI, including The Cult of Ayn Rand, It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand, et al. Unfortunately, as is often the case with the Brandens, I have to rely on a conversation I had with someone in a position to know, as verification. But that's OK, isn't it? Of course, the news I bring vindicates ARI, and I'd be more readily accepted if I brought something damning to the table, right?
(Edited by Tom Rowland on 6/07, 10:51am)
(Edited by Tom Rowland on 6/07, 10:57am)
|
|
