Liar, Liar, Elan Journo's Pants on Fire! (Burns Bio)

[Neil Parille]

The ARI’s Elan Journo recently reviewed, Goddess of the Market.  Journo argues that Burns’ book is deficient in matters of scope and interpretation.  For example, Burns sees too much influence on Rand’s upbringing on her later philosophy, devotes too much space to Rand’s affair with Nathaniel Branden, devotes too little space on her philosophic views on non-political questions, etc.  Some of these contentions I agree with and some I don’t. 

Up front, Journo never mentions that, as noted above, Burns revealed that six volumes of Rand’s posthumously published material were so heavily edited as to be essentially worthless.  And all the editors still are associated with the ARI (with perhaps the exception of Harriman).  I think readers of Journo’s review should know that.

Journo argues that Burns “leans heavily” on the Branden books.  Well, Goddess contains 45 pages of endnotes (in smaller print than the body of the text).  I counted 630 endnotes.  I totted up the notes that mention one or both of the Branden books, and there were a whopping 20 that mentioned a Branden book.  That’s 3 percent of the notes.  And consider the following: on page 318, Burns cites nearly 30 letters from Isabel Paterson to Rand and vice versa.

Also, Journo fails to mention that Burns confirmed many aspects of their accounts through research at the ARI’s Archives (see her Essay on Sources in Goddess and her website.)  She concluded that while the books should be used with caution, they have value as primary source material and we should be grateful for all the interviews Barbara Branden took.  But to Journo, this is too much.  And consider this attack on the Brandens: “Each openly admits to being serially dishonest. They admit that for years they deceived themselves and deceived friends and deceived Rand, while she was a close friend, mentor, business partner.”  Nathaniel admits that he lied to Rand about having an affair with a young model for years.  Barbara admitted that she concealed Nathaniel’s affair with the model but eventually threatened to tell Rand.  How this amounts to being serially dishonest not only to Rand but also friends is beyond me.

Continuing his attack on the Brandens, Journo alleges: “For example, she [Burns] notes of Barbara Branden’s book that it includes ‘significantly edited and rewritten’ quotes as if they were verbatim, and that it is ‘marred by serious inaccuracies.’”  However, Burns’ statement about quotes being rewritten refers to Branden’s interviews with Rand.  Burns argues that Branden, in effect, “cleaned up” Rand’s responses but doesn’t assert she changed their meaning.  And the claim about “serious inaccuracies” reads in full:

“Moreover, Branden’s biography is marred by serious inaccuracies and tales that do not stand up to historical investigations, including the now debunked story that Rand named herself after her typewriter.  Too often, Branden takes Rand’s stories about herself at face value, reporting as fact information contradicted by the historical record.”

Most importantly, if Journo’s contention is that Burns makes mistakes of a strictly historical nature by relying on the Branden accounts, then he should give some examples.  Did Frank consume alcohol to excess?  Did Rand consume amphetamines to an extent that it comprised her mental health?*  Did Rand and Nathaniel obtain the consent of their respective spouses before initiating the affair?  Was Rand wrong that Nathaniel was in effect stealing from her?  Journo’s evaluation of such contentions?  As someone used to say: “blank out.”

As a final point, it’s interesting to see how far we’ve come concerning the Branden accounts. In 1986, after The Passion of Ayn Rand was published, Leonard Peikoff said he wouldn’t read the book but claimed everything in it was an “arbitrary assertion” (he even told David Kelley that the claim of the affair was arbitrary).  Peter Schwartz seconded the arbitrary assertion claim, adding that Branden’s recollections should be given no more credence than a person claiming to have visited Buddhist temples with Rand.  Then, in 2005, a Peikoff sponsored a dishonest hit piece was published, The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics by James Valliant.  Not only were the Branden books arbitrary, but they were dishonest from beginning to end.  Now, after nearly forty years of dissembling, it looks like the Brandens got it right and we are now just quibbling about various interpretations.
_______

*Incidentally, Barbara Branden acknowledged Rand’s amphetamine use but denied its negative effects on her mental health.  Burns concludes otherwise.  So much for Burns’ uncritical reliance on the Brandens.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Neil,

It's good you are holding Journo's feet to the fire on accuracy, but did you look around The New Ideal site?

It's a small niche publication with tiny to no impact on the culture. And it gets a lot wrong. A good example is channeling Rand: "Ayn Rand would have xxx," or "Ayn Rand would have never yyyy." How do they know that? Are they in communion with her spirit from the grave? Do they do seances?

 

They luvs them some qualitative adjectives, too. Especially negative ones. "Appalling" and so forth. yawn...

They write what they want, including some pretty boneheaded speculations presented as facts, inaccuracies, attributions of incorrect intentions to others and so forth (I got that just from a skim). But they are within their rights to write what they want. I am also within my own rights to ignore them, as does most of humanity.  

Rand herself said (through Toohey):  "Don't bother to examine a folly—ask yourself only what it accomplishes."

 

From what I can tell, ideas presented in the manner done on The New Ideal accomplishes very little. Does anyone think Journo's review of Jennifer Burns's book will influence the sales, or even the impact that book has had on the culture?

It's a paycheck, though, for those who write there.

btw - Paid for by whom? Who pays the paycheck, hmmmmm? Where does the money come from?

The free market? Sales to readers?

Heh...  

My guess is NGOs running funds provided by governments and crony corporatist arrangements.

In other words, propaganda dressed up to look like intellectual articles.

 

Debunk away if you wish. I, myself, find that target too small to bother with. I don't mean that to be a putdown or act arrogantly. I really do not get value from what those people write. On my skim. I saw a few topics in headlines that interested me, but when I clicked on the articles and started reading, I got bored by the posturing. Right up front.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

I check out New Ideal from time to time.  I don't like how they speak in Rand's name, but they have some interesting material.

[Neil Parille]

I wonder what Valliant thinks since the ARI and New Ideal have reviewed the Burns bio and the Popoff bio and no mention of his screed.