This review makes fair observations but misses the mark in other ways. I definitely agree that there are issues in Burns's book. She doesn’t pay sufficient attention to Rand’s philosophy and weirdly attributes to her views she doesn’t espouse (e.g. claiming she’s a white supremacist due to cherry-picking a quote out of context). But some of Journo’s own claims don’t hold up. He fails to mention that Burns was able to verify many of Branden's claims in her book by consulting the ARI’s archives. While there are some inaccuracies, they still have great value as historical sources. Journo also doesn't recognise that Burns pointed out that the rewritten parts in Branden’s book didn’t actually change the overall meaning of Rand’s responses and that, if anything, Branden took Rand’s self-serving response at face value.
It's inconsistent for Journo to accuse Burns of not engaging with Rand’s work when he doesn't do the same with regard to her book.
Some interesting observations here, but some of the biographical standards Journo holds Burns to are outlandish. Burns’ excellent, OUP-published biography of Ayn Rand isn’t worth reading because… Burns didn’t state how significant it would if moral realism were true?
“Professor Bigglesworth’s biography of G.E. Moore is a failure because, astonishingly, while it notes that Moore defended external world realism, it doesn’t state how significant it would be if Moore were right, because it would mean you really do have a penis!”
This review makes fair observations but misses the mark in other ways. I definitely agree that there are issues in Burns's book. She doesn’t pay sufficient attention to Rand’s philosophy and weirdly attributes to her views she doesn’t espouse (e.g. claiming she’s a white supremacist due to cherry-picking a quote out of context). But some of Journo’s own claims don’t hold up. He fails to mention that Burns was able to verify many of Branden's claims in her book by consulting the ARI’s archives. While there are some inaccuracies, they still have great value as historical sources. Journo also doesn't recognise that Burns pointed out that the rewritten parts in Branden’s book didn’t actually change the overall meaning of Rand’s responses and that, if anything, Branden took Rand’s self-serving response at face value.
It's inconsistent for Journo to accuse Burns of not engaging with Rand’s work when he doesn't do the same with regard to her book.
Some interesting observations here, but some of the biographical standards Journo holds Burns to are outlandish. Burns’ excellent, OUP-published biography of Ayn Rand isn’t worth reading because… Burns didn’t state how significant it would if moral realism were true?
“Professor Bigglesworth’s biography of G.E. Moore is a failure because, astonishingly, while it notes that Moore defended external world realism, it doesn’t state how significant it would be if Moore were right, because it would mean you really do have a penis!”
I'll have to read to find out
What?
It appears that you suffer from the same affliction which Burns is herein diagnosed. Did you even read the piece at all? Gosh!!