Hsieh on Frank


Jonathan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would not want to have a relationship with a man who thinks of women as property.

Ellen

___

Well, that certainly ought to go both ways! Even though we are discussing a Randian world in which preference for multiple matings seems to be given to the womenfolk :poke:

Personally, I would not want to have a relationship with a woman who thinks of sex so shallowly that she is able to schedule the time it takes to have that kind of relationship with other men than me, her husband. (And that goes both ways, too.)

Good, intimate sex in a deep, caring relationship, in which the two don't feel alienated and abandoned afterward, takes a good deal of time in preparation and savoring. A "girl's" (or "boy's") night out or "old time's sake" sleepover seems to be playing a bit fast and loose with such human realities.

But whatever floats your boat (or your little man therein!) :devil:

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good, intimate sex in a deep, caring relationship, in which the two don't feel alienated and abandoned afterward, takes a good deal of time in preparation and savoring. A "girl's" (or "boy's") night out or "old time's sake" sleepover seems to be playing a bit fast and loose with such human realities.

Oh, admittedly. But we're not talking about Dagny running off to Chippendales, or having a fling with the UPS man. She's having an affair with someone for whom she cares deeply. Why would John want to deprive her of that? It's not like she's going to leave him for the other man. Practically speaking, how is it different from her having a deep conversation with a male friend, or a female friend for that matter? The love given to one person isn't taken away from another.

Judith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story Ellen relates in #34 brings up an interesting literary question: where is the character? on the page or in the author's mind? I'm for the former, and I agree with most here that Rand's characters as we see them in print would not go for such an arrangement. She knows her own creations better than anyone else, doesn't she? someone will say, and I'll answer not necessarily. An author can lack objectivity much as a parent can. One of my Objectivist friends pointed this out years ago in response to Rand's statement, quoted by Peikoff, that Chopin's Butterfly étude captures character of Galt, the man "without pain or fear or guilt." Galt is a much more serious and heavyweight character than the music connotes, and if you insist otherwise you're saying that Rand misfired literarily.

In this instance, Franciso himself tells Dagny that he hasn't had any in twelve years, and he doesn't seem the type to lie gratuitiously. Just speculating here, but maybe when Rand said this she regretted having deprived him of so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... She knows her own creations better than anyone else, doesn't she? someone will say, and I'll answer not necessarily. ...

Oh come on; first someone says she didn't understand her own husband, and now she didn't understand her own fictional creations either? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story Ellen relates in #34 brings up an interesting literary question: where is the character? on the page or in the author's mind? I'm for the former, and I agree with most here that Rand's characters as we see them in print would not go for such an arrangement. She knows her own creations better than anyone else, doesn't she? someone will say, and I'll answer not necessarily. An author can lack objectivity much as a parent can. One of my Objectivist friends pointed this out years ago in response to Rand's statement, quoted by Peikoff, that Chopin's Butterfly étude captures character of Galt, the man "without pain or fear or guilt." Galt is a much more serious and heavyweight character than the music connotes, and if you insist otherwise you're saying that Rand misfired literarily.

Oh no, that étude is much more serious than the whole Galt. The name "butterfly" was not given by Chopin and it isn't very appropriate; it would be a damn heavy butterfly in the recapitulation of the main theme with the bass line in octaves (ff appassionato). Of course the real heavyweight is the next étude in b minor; the end (fff il più forte possibile) is the most shattering climax in the piano literature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story Ellen relates in #34 brings up an interesting literary question: where is the character? on the page or in the author's mind? I'm for the former, and I agree with most here that Rand's characters as we see them in print would not go for such an arrangement. She knows her own creations better than anyone else, doesn't she? someone will say, and I'll answer not necessarily. An author can lack objectivity much as a parent can.

That's a really interesting question, Peter. I'm inclined to say, contra what it might have looked as if I would say, that the character exists more "on the page" than in the author's mind...except, I hope you see how complicated that gets. All that literally exists "on the page" is a series of marks which need a reader even to interpret as words and sentences. The character "on the page" is actually as imagined in the mind of the reader. And different readers won't see a character the same way. I think there are parameters -- but fuzzy ones -- according to which one can delimit reasonable interpretations. But it isn't the case that just because you (or you and quite a number of others) "read" a character in a particular way, that is the way the character "objectively" must be read.

A detail in my initial statement is that I had already thought, before I heard of Rand's reported comment, that it should be the case that Dagny would spend the occasional night with Francisco and with Hank (not both together; different nights ;-)). I was pleased that Rand thought so too. If she had said, oh, positively not, what I would have thought was, ok, she has the prerogative over what her own characters would do as she conceived them, but I would have felt a disjunct between what I was seeing in the characters and what she was. I don't think there would have been enough textual evidence to say positively I was right and the author had created a character which was more than, or somewhat different from, the author's own view of the character.

Ellen

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, Laure, in regard to her understanding of her own husband, however, I think that she did not understand him well. I think she thought of him more in a fictionalized way, as if he were one of her characters.

Just an example reported by a lot of people I knew who were close friends of Frank's and Ayn's (also reported by John Hospers in his memoir): I wonder what you make of her saying that Frank loved New York and hated California when others who knew him said he never quite got over having to leave California?

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, Laure, in regard to her understanding of her own husband, however, I think that she did not understand him well. I think she thought of him more in a fictionalized way, as if he were one of her characters.

Just an example reported by a lot of people I knew who were close friends of Frank's and Ayn's (also reported by John Hospers in his memoir): I wonder what you make of her saying that Frank loved New York and hated California when others who knew him said he never quite got over having to leave California?

Despite the freedom she expected in her relationship, it looks to me like she saw Frank almost the way many men see their wives, as property, or as extensions of themselves. She assumed that he felt that way because she felt that way. It would be preposterous for the furniture to disagree. :)

Judith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, Laure, in regard to her understanding of her own husband, however, I think that she did not understand him well. I think she thought of him more in a fictionalized way, as if he were one of her characters.

Just an example reported by a lot of people I knew who were close friends of Frank's and Ayn's (also reported by John Hospers in his memoir): I wonder what you make of her saying that Frank loved New York and hated California when others who knew him said he never quite got over having to leave California?

Despite the freedom she expected in her relationship, it looks to me like she saw Frank almost the way many men see their wives, as property, or as extensions of themselves. She assumed that he felt that way because she felt that way. It would be preposterous for the furniture to disagree. :)

Judith

I think you have a very narrow and non objective view on what most men view their women as. Most men do not view their women as property. Do you seriously think this? I wouldn't even think that most men in America viewed their wives as property in the year 1700. We are not living in Saudi Arabia. Your prejudice just oozes.

Besides, if you actually believe that this were to be the case and practicing infedility will somehow "liberate" you from this type of "ownership" I contend you're mistaken. You're just allowing society or your partner's relationship with you to dictate your behavior which is the exact same form of perceived control.

If you wish to have an open marriage or creep around on your spouse I doubt anyone here would ever advocate that anyone stop you. However most will probably find it morally faulted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, Laure, in regard to her understanding of her own husband, however, I think that she did not understand him well. I think she thought of him more in a fictionalized way, as if he were one of her characters.

Just an example reported by a lot of people I knew who were close friends of Frank's and Ayn's (also reported by John Hospers in his memoir): I wonder what you make of her saying that Frank loved New York and hated California when others who knew him said he never quite got over having to leave California?

Despite the freedom she expected in her relationship, it looks to me like she saw Frank almost the way many men see their wives, as property, or as extensions of themselves. She assumed that he felt that way because she felt that way. It would be preposterous for the furniture to disagree. :)

Judith

I think you have a very narrow and non objective view on what most men view their women as. Most men do not view their women as property. Do you seriously think this? I wouldn't even think that most men in America viewed their wives as property in the year 1700. We are not living in Saudi Arabia. Your prejudice just oozes.

Besides, if you actually believe that this were to be the case and practicing infedility will somehow "liberate" you from this type of "ownership" I contend you're mistaken. You're just allowing society or your partner's relationship with you to dictate your behavior which is the exact same form of perceived control.

If you wish to have an open marriage or creep around on your spouse I doubt anyone here would ever advocate that anyone stop you. However most will probably find it morally faulted.

I agree.

Here is part of an interview with Nathaniel Branden, whose revised version of The Psychology of Romantic Love is coming out soon. The interview was on the Newsweek website and is probably in the print magazine, too, though I can't say for sure. Here is the relevant excerpt:

You received a lot of publicity many years ago about your open marriage and affair with Ayn Rand, who was also married at the time. What do you think now about the problems posed by jealousy and the idea of non-exclusive sexual relationships?

I think that a non-exclusive relationship is an almost certain recipe for disaster. Cultures that take extramarital sex for granted are not cultures in which marriage is associated with intense passion. When we love passionately, I believe the desire for sexual exclusivity is entirely normal.

If we wish to minimize problems of jealousy, we must never give our partner grounds to doubt our honesty. And we must never ignore or refuse to deal with our partner's painful feelings.

Most couples or individuals who have experimented with sexually "open" relationships in their younger years are generally inclined, by the time they are in their 40s or early 50s, to favor sexual exclusivity. There is the feeling that romantic love, in the context of an exclusive relationship, may in the end be the most exciting adventure there is. This is my own conviction.

© 2008 Newsweek, Inc.

Best to all,

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we wish to minimize problems of jealousy, we must never give our partner grounds to doubt our honesty. And we must never ignore or refuse to deal with our partner's painful feelings.

I agree wholeheartedly with this quote. I've never, ever advocated lying to one's spouse about one's activities.

If you read Nathaniel's "The Romantic Love Question and Answer Book", later released as "What Love Asks of Us", you'll see a section on how he advocates dealing humanely and honestly with one's spouse while one has an affair.

Note that I'm not saying that affairs should be standard practice. (Remember the original context: I'm saying that Dagny should have occasional dates with Francisco and Hank, for both of whom she has very serious feelings, not that she should cruise the valley looking for love on Saturday evenings.) But if the occasion arises, as it did with Ayn and Nathaniel, it need not be a disaster. I'm very glad that those two slept together; it makes me feel as if there's something right with the universe. They could have been kinder to their spouses about it, but in my view the act itself was not the problem so many people make it out to be.

Judith

Edited by Judith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that I'm not saying that affairs should be standard practice. (Remember the original context: I'm saying that Dagny should have occasional dates with Francisco and Hank, for both of whom she has very serious feelings, not that she should cruise the valley looking for love on Saturday evenings.)

Ditto.

But if the occasion arises, as it did with Ayn and Nathaniel, it need not be a disaster. I'm very glad that those two slept together; it makes me feel as if there's something right with the universe. They could have been kinder to their spouses about it, but in my view the act itself was not the problem so many people make it out to be.

I never had any problems with the very idea of it. But I think that the way it was handled, and the mythologic cast of the reasons given, boded problems from the start.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Here are some posts from another thread that include information I want easily available to researchers.

Michael

Information on Frank's Drinking

Here is an email I just received from Barbara. I requested permission to post it on OL and she has granted it.

Michael, here is some information I think will interest you, It is relevant to accusations that I fabricated my statement in Passion that over the years Frank O'Connor became a heavy drinker.

You may remember that on page 334 of Passion, I wrote that in 1964, "Frank was growing increasingly frail and thin, and had developed a contraction of the tendons of his hand which seriously interfered with his painting." He required surgery, which was successful, and which allowed him to return to his work and to the Art Students League. Sadly, the condition would return in later years.

The name of Frank's disease was Dupuytren's Contracture. Here are some statements by authorities on the subject:

The Mayo Clinic

"Dupuytren's contracture is a rare hand deformity in which the connective tissue (fascia) under the skin of the palm thickens and scars. Knots (nodes) and cords of tissue form under the skin, often pulling one or more of the fingers into a bent (contracted) position. Though the fingers affected by Dupuytren's contracture bend normally, they can't be straightened, making it difficult to use your hand. Dupuytren's contracture complicates everyday activities such as placing your hands in your pockets, putting on gloves or shaking hand....'

Among the risk factors for this deformity, the clinic explains, is :

"Alcoholism. It isn't clear whether drinking itself or the liver damage that can result increases the risk of Dupuytren's contracture."

Wikepedia states:

"Correlations have also been found between Dupuytren's contracture and:

Smoking or drinking activity,

Diabetes, Thyroid problems and Epilepsy

Alcoholism ad Liver Diseases."

Felisa S Lewis, MD, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, writes:

"Many conditions or factors have been associated with Dupuytren contracture. The following have shown the strongest associations....

"Alcoholic liver disease: Individuals with alcoholism or liver disease have an increased prevalence of Dupuytren contracture (approximately 20%) compared with control populations. Patients with liver disease from other causes do not appear to be at increased risk."

Dr. Lawrence N. Hurst MD FRCS(C ) "The association of Dupuytren's contracture with alcoholism, with or without cirrhosis, has been studied by many authors, and reports show an increased incidence of Dupuytren's contracture among alcoholic patients. The distribution of the disease in such patients mainly involves a thickening in the palmar aponeurosis without significant contractures; however, the disease can be very aggressive, leading to severe joint contractures in some cases. The association may be related to the amount of alcohol ingested and its effects on the microcirculation."

Along with my own observations on Frank's condition before I left New York, and reports from people close to Ayn and Frank in later years, my statements about Frank's drinking are certainly justified.

Best,

Barbara

Between the four sources she has on file from Rand's later years, her own observations before the break, and the general comments over the years within the Objectivist subcommunity, I fully agree that her statements are more than justified.

Michael

Here is another post from March 2006 on another thread. I am including it here to keep this information together for researchers. I am not so keen on including the PARC reference on a thread in Barbara's corner, but this is the main source cited as authority for the accusation against her, so I left it in.

Michael

Frank O'Connor's drinking

Fallacy in PARC: The account of Frank O'Connor's drinking was made up by the Brandens, principally by Barbara.

Quotes from PARC:

"It must be borne in mind that the Brandens are the exclusive sources for the claim of O'Connor's alcoholism, and that both have a vested interest in portraying O'Connor as a devastated man, driven to drink by Rand's callousness." (p. 145)
"And yet, as previously indicated, it is those closest to the O'Connors in their later years who most vehemently deny this charge.

In the end, there is no reason to suppose that Ms. Branden is not the true source of this urban legend herself." (p. 147)

Truth: Four different people close to Frank O'Connor corroborated that he had a drinking problem.

Main reason for the fallacy in PARC: Sloppy research. The author did not consult either Barbara Branden or Nathaniel Branden and ask them for their sources, nor were any people who knew Ayn Rand outside of the ARI circle interviewed (at least none are credited in PARC).

Evidence: Post by Barbara Branden: Objectivist Living, Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:55 am..

I appreciate the fact that polite questions have been raised about Frank O'Connor's drinking, and so I am happy to answer the questions.

I, myself, did not see him seriously affected by his drinking (only, sometimes, what I would have called being tipsy) -- or, if I did, I was not aware of it, since it's not something I was attuned to noticing in people -- but I left in 1968, and I've been told that his really debilitating drinking began after that time. I was told about his drinking by four people (two of whom were close to Ayn and Frank). One, as I believe you know, was the maid who worked for Ayn and Frank for many years and who discovered all the empty liquor bottles in Frank's studio after his death. Another was Elayne Kalberman, a member of the Collective, who said that she smelled liquor on Frank and observed him unsteady on his feet a number of times when she came to the apartment in the mornings on business matters.. Still another was Barbara Weiss (now deceased), who spent a good deal of time in the apartment as Ayn's secretary in Ayn and Frank's later years; she, too, told me that she often smelled liquor on Frank's breath; and she recounted various episodes of his behavior -- which I do not care to recount -- which clearly showed that he was badly affected by his drinking. The final one was a sculptor named Don Ventura, a recovered alcoholic himself, who often talked with Frank in a bar they both went to, and who told me that it was clear to him that Frank was a fellow-alcohoic.

I have Elayne Kalberman's and Barbara Weiss' statements on tape, since I interviewed them both as preparation for my biography. I have letters giving their statements from both Don Ventura and the maid.

No one had asked me to keep his or her name secret. I decided on my own that since they all cared deeply for Frank, they probably would prefer not to be named in my biography as describing his drinking..

By the way, in my biography of Rand, I did not diagnose Frank as an alcoholic, although I did state that he was drinking heavily. And I did, of course, quote Don Ventura's statement.

Edit - September 2, 2006 - More evidence

Another confirmation of Frank's drinking was given in a discussion on Solo Passion by George H. Smith on September 2, 2006. A quote from the post is given below. Albeit, it is a bit vague, it is still from a credible source in the Objectivist world.

The major source for the Frank story was a woman whose name I don't recall. This conversation happened around 1972, when there was a lot of interest in the L.A. area about the split. A key player in collecting information was Roy Childs, who made a point of interviewing everyone who knew something about the split and who was willing to talk to him.

Roy and I lived in the same apartment building in Hollywood, and we saw each other every day. One day he said he was having lunch with a woman who had been affiliated with NBI and knew the principal players. He wanted to "pump" her for information (this was a near-obsession with Roy, as those who knew him can attest), and I agreed to tag along.

Well, she and Roy spoke for around an hour. (I said very little.) The relevant point was her comment about Frank O'Connor (a person I knew virtually nothing about at the time). After confirming the essentials of Roy's research about the split, she said that she felt most sorry for "Frank," and that she viewed him as the real victim in the entire mess. She added that he had turned to drinking, while speculating that he had withdrawn so much that he felt helpless to do anything.

Now, Roy (who had a problem with drinking himself) was very interested in this detail, so he and she talked about it for at least ten minutes. Beyond that I don't really remember a whole lot. That was 35 years ago, and I really didn't think much about it afterwards, except that, yeah, I'd probably drink too in a situation like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now