| | I know for a fact that there was no creative editing of the journals of Ayn Rand for Valliant's book. I helped transcribe them. Honestly, I am so tired of this. Even after Valliant has proven that there are gross misrepresentations and omissions of entire chunks of reality in both of the Brandens' books that all conveniently cast a negative light on Ayn Rand, Rand's critics continue to give the Brandens the benefit of the doubt and continue to doubt the evidence from Rand's own pen. Nearly 100% of the journal entries were included. Only a couple of repetitive entries and references to people other than those involved in the Branden situation were ommitted, because they added nothing that was not already included or because they were irrelevant, respectively. PERIOD. Some day, the raw manuscripts will be available for inspection, of course. How stupid do you think the author (who had absolute freedom to publish them in their entirety from ARI) would have to be to try to get away with distorting the record in his book only to have the raw evidence come out and discredit his work forever? DUH! As a prosecuting attorney, he knows better than anyone in the peanut gallery that far from avoiding difficult evidence for one's case, you must address that evidence first and head-on. He did. What was fascinating was that the character of Rand was revealed to be something utterly different from the character described in the Brandens' books. Quite frankly, I was half-dreading that the impression this Commentary writer got from the Brandens' books would be given some kind of credence by Rand's own journal entries, and I was amazed, gratified, and outraged when they proved Rand was nothing like the picture they had painted. Unfortunately, some won't let go of that portrait of Rand, even when the evidence is staring them in the face. Now we are asked to believe that, even though Rand is shown to be consistently reasonable, patient, and generous in her labors to help Branden sort out the fraudulent psychological issues he kept bringing to her, that maybe there are bits where she proved to be a completely different kind of person that were excised from the text. And, of course, it is those who give Rand the benefit of the doubt raised by the overwhelming evidence in her favor who are the religious sycophants, it is those that actually cracked the book and read the evidence for themselves that are deluded, it is those that have come to the conclusion that there was no Mrs. Hyde to Miss Rand's character, after all, who are "branded" as sycophants setting up an impossible goddess to worship. Meanwhile, the "branders" continue to believe Rand was Rand and non-Rand at the same time and in the same respect solely on the basis of the Brandens' accounts, even after their accounts have been proven to be filled with demonstrably false statements and omitted facts. Now who is being reasonable and who are being sycophants here?
|
|
