| | Dr. Campbell,
Apology accepted, with my thanks.
I have just a few more things to say ("egad, he's gonna waste even more of our precious time... Somebody get the hook!) before I hang it up for the night.
My original intent had been to comment on Lyndsay's review, especially his beginning to the effect that he was one of [the members of this group?] who had vowed not to read Valliant's book, but was persuaded to change his mind and was glad the he had read it afterall.
Had I taken the time to read each and every post that followed his, I would have known that Valliant had been commenting throughout this thread. Probably I would not have exploded in quite so insulting a manner -- or not. I do have a very low opinion of his book, in terms of both style and substance (and LENGTH), in addition to an intense dislike for his publisher, of which I have never heard before going to their web site.
At the time of my visit to Durban House's web site, PARC was still in it's pre-release promotion phase. A little checking revealed them to be in Dallas. Further checking on a few of their books gave them the appearance of a vanity press sort of outfit, but what really bothered me was why, if indeed Valliant had been selected as the "editor" of Ayn Rand's personal journals, was his editorial debut devoted to a "final destruction" of the Brandens after so many years. Was there no end to the greed of ARI, no depth to which LP would not stoop to get back at his own cousin? The more I thought about it, the angrier I became, because I already knew that certain bona fide scholars were being denied access to Rand's papers.
Such total control reminded me very much of Rand, herself. I had been one of the original researchers for LP's OMINOUS PARALLELS, and I knew first hand exactly why the final product read so much differently from the early excerpts that appeared before I'd moved away from NYC. [I'll get to the answer, guys, so don't anybody hassel me with barbed questions; it probably deserves a thread of it's own.]
So, turning to Michael's accomplishments of the day, you managed to get an admission regarding the principals of Valliant's production company (which still exists, or did the last time I visited it's web site). Well done. And, not so trivial as some around here believe.
Perhaps some thought will be given to "why" my first post took the form that it did. It got your attention. And, Mr. Fahy, we may yet obtain a few more revelations from attorney Valliant. As a prosecutor, he most likely makes the strongest case he can to get a conviction, which ought to mean he puts only credible witnesses on the stand --- credible, that is, to the jury. He tries to avoid the sort of surprises that happened in the Michael Jackson trial.
[I know, Fahy: you and Valliant had an essay on the web that, so he says, led to his invitation to do this book. So, you've got a vested interest in my being all wet. I can't help that, nor can I help you deal with it. But, do try.]
Well, I'm here for exactly the same reason, in reverse. I'm not here to get any points from Fahy (notice that I bothered to spell your name correctly) or anyone else who has already "moved on" from their evaluation and consideration of Valliant's book. As long as you let me stay, I'm here to say what I think needs to be said about Valliant's take ("case") against the Brandens and his alleged "defense" of poor, maligned, ad hominemed and persecuted to death Ayn Rand, who claims, we are told, to have been totally blind-sided by NB -- to which I say, and am reasonably certain I can prove, BULL SHIT. (Incidently, I'm betting that Mayhew leaves out most of the particular Q&A session in which AR uses the same term regarding some lady professor at Columbia, back in 1976. I was in the audience, on a visit to New York, when she said that and some other rather amazing things having to do with "sense of life," her own in particular.)
BTW, a major difficulty with this, and any message board, is that we aren't posting in real time. That's a made to order recipe for misunderstandings and incorrect conclusions.
-- more, later...
John
|
|
