High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
THE PASSION OF JAMES VALLIANT’S CRITICISM
By Neil ParilleDecember 28, 2008May Circulate Freely
I.Introduction
Like many people who don’t consider themselves Objectivists, I’ve long had aninterest in Ayn Rand and Objectivism. And like many such people, I have read BarbaraBranden’s biography of Rand,
The Passion of Ayn Rand
(“
PAR
” or “
Passion”
). When Iread it shortly after it was published, I assumed that it was an accurate portrayal of a brilliant, if flawed, woman. I don’t recall reading Nathaniel Branden’s memoirs
Judgment Day
(“
JD
”) and
My Years with Ayn Rand
(“
MYWAR
” or “
My Years
”), althoughI had heard that they contained much that wasn’t flattering.In 2005, James Valliant published a book entitled
The Passion of Ayn Rand'sCritics
(“
PARC
”)
. PARC
claims the alleged mistakes, fabrications, contradictions andhidden agendas of the Brandens are so great as to render their books “useless” asscholarship.
PARC
was even more noteworthy because Valliant included, with LeonardPeikoff’s permission, substantial portions of Rand’s private journals concerning her relationship with Nathaniel Branden. Since this book had prompted some people toreevaluate their view of Ayn Rand and the Brandens, I considered it appropriate todiscuss the book. I began a series of posts on myweblog and also onSoloPassion.com
which were critical of the book’s methodology and use of sources. James Valliantresponded to many of these posts and the interested reader may find his responses tomuch of the material gathered in this essay.
1
Valliant has posted revised versions of some of the chapters of
PARC
on hisSoloPassion.com blog.In these chapters he made some changes in response to mycriticisms, but left most of the work unchanged. In this essay all references are to the1
By way of background, by the time I read
PARC
, it had been years since I readBranden’s biography. In fact, I didn’t even own a copy of it. My impression of
PARC
was mixed. Although I disliked the style of the book,
it appeared to me that Valliant hadmade a number of good points and legitimately called into question the accuracy of theBrandens’ books. At the same time, it seemed that even on Valliant’s own representationsof the books, many of the points he made (roughly a quarter) were weak. For example,Valliant’s attack on Barbara Branden’s apparent mistake concerning the origin of Rand’sname, or some of the alleged contradictions in the books (
e.g.
, whether Rand liked physical activity or to cook) represent an unfortunate tendency on Valliant’s part tonitpick and refuse to give the Brandens the benefit of the doubt. Valliant even turns asurprise party thrown to celebrate the publication of
Atlas Shrugged
into a sinister attempt by the Brandens to control Rand’s “context through deception.” (
PARC
, pp. 49-50.)In the months following its publication,
PARC
generated substantial discussion onthe internet. While some critiques were published on the web, none went into great detailconcerning Valliant’s use of the Brandens’ books as sources.
By that time I had become print edition of
PARC
, except as specified.
2
For example, the endless cheerleading (“Bullseye, Miss Rand”), the personalattacks on Nathaniel Branden (“the soul of a rapist”), and the implicit claim repeated
ad nauseam
that the Brandens are heretics whose every disagreement with Rand is in realitya veiled attack on Objectivism and the importance of philosophy.
3
Wendy McElroytook issue with Valliant’s writing style, but seemed to accept atface value Valliant’s claim that the Brandens’ books contain errors and inconsistencies.Chris Sciabarrapublished a lengthy critique of
PARC
on the web which focused on larger questions such as to what extent
Passion’s
description of Rand has become accepted, theappropriateness of publishing Rand’s personal journals, Rand’s view of homosexuality,and the like. He did however point out certain mistakes by Valliant, such as his erroneoussuggestion that Sciabarra doubted Rand’s version of her university studies. Sciabarraalso analyzed Valliant’s poor use of sources in describing Rand’s break with Kay NolteSmith and some other issues.David Brown’sreview of
PARC
was brief and dismissive,apparently finding it so blatantly partisan as not worthy of great discussion. Perhaps the2
suspicious that Valliant’s representation of their books was not entirely accurate. For example, with respect to the origin of Rand’s name, Valliant claims that OrthodoxObjectivist
Allan Gotthelf found that, contrary to Barbara Branden, it could not haveoriginated with a Remington Rand typewriter. Valliant wrote that Gotthelf would providehis research in a new edition of his book
On Ayn Rand
. I recalled, however, that in the2000 edition of this book, Gotthelf also claimed that Rand’s name originated with aRemington Rand typewriter. I then grabbed my copy of the book and saw that Gotthelf stated that he had checked all the biographical facts in his book with archivists at the AynRand Institute (“ARI”). Certainly this was information that Valliant should have sharedwith readers before accusing Branden of dishonesty.My curiosity piqued, I ordered copies of the Brandens’ books and begancomparing what Valliant claimed they said with what they actually said. What I foundwas surprising. Quite often Valliant misrepresents what the Brandens say. On someoccasions what the Brandens say is the exact opposite of what Valliant claims.In this essay I have not discussed all the examples of mistakes, contradictions, andfabrications that Valliant purports to find in the Brandens’ accounts. I do believe I haveanalyzed a representative sample. I am the first to concede that the Brandens’ admitteddeception of Rand should be considered in weighing the accuracy of their memoirs.I should mention that I am not a friend of either of the Brandens, nor do I consider myself a “supporter” of either of them. I am not even vouching for the accuracy of their most interesting critique to date isJordan Zimmerman’s“
PARC
database” in which heargued that many of the allegations made by Valliant are unpersuasive, even on Valliant’sown description of the Brandens’ books. The Objectivist Reference Center collects manyreviews and discussions on itswebsite.
4
By “Orthodox Objectivist” I mean an Objectivist associated with the Ayn RandInstitute.3
Add a Comment