Hsieh on Frank


Jonathan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As far as an alcoholic being no match for Ayn, that is beside the point. Whoever says that doesn't understand much about the spousal dynamics involved where one of them is an alcoholic.

I guess it depends whether you go with the disease model or the choice model, as to how shrill you will be when trying to pointlessly protect someone's good name. I totally don't get that. If Frank was a heavy, quiet drinker (which I could totally see- shit, AR was running a sanctioned affair and he was complying!- hell, that alone would make me think about just hiding in my studio, and doing art and swilling. Totally demoralizing!).

Agreed. And this stuff is all worthless gossip anyway. What does it matter? Have you folks even thought about that? This ancient topic just serves as terrain for people to argue with one another over something that ultimately is inconsequential and also irrelevent to the realm of ideas. I'm guessing that the median age on this site is 35 or 40? Regardless, it's old enough for us to know better.

I don't care how much Frank drank. But I'd be more interested, from a moral point of view, understanding why any male would ever consent to what he did. But even that is mere gossip and worthless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RTB,

You call that a contribution to a discussion?

Heh.

Get over it yourself. These things are what people do. Don't read it if you don't want to.

Michael

Yes, MSK. Sometimes harsh words can be a contribution. Feel the love! :-P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RTB,

Just a little history. Nobody, and I mean nobody, was very much interested in Frank's drinking problems beyond Rand's immediate circle. Barbara mentioned it as part of her biography of Rand based on people she interviewed, just like one would mention the issues of family members in any biography. It was a VERY minor point.

Then the orthodoxy latched hold of this as one more "proof" of the evilness of the Brandens, yada yada yada. It got to the point where they alleged that Frank used empty booze bottles to paint with and other such matters. It grew and grew and grew.

It would be silly and forgettable if they had left it there. But they periodically insist on this nonsense and keep at it in the most vicious terms possible. It gets really nasty when they get on a roll.

So, rather than letting the issue die, which it would have years ago if not for the nonsense, people keep discussing Frank's drinking.

Cheers.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I'd be more interested, from a moral point of view, understanding why any male would ever consent to what he did.

Why not? Haven't you ever heard of "open marriage"? After the first heat of passion wears off of a relationship, one no longer goes crazy at the thought of one's partner being with someone else. I've always been surprised that people found Frank's complicity so surprising -- it seems perfectly normal to me after so many years of marriage.

Judith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I'd be more interested, from a moral point of view, understanding why any male would ever consent to what he did.

Why not? Haven't you ever heard of "open marriage"? After the first heat of passion wears off of a relationship, one no longer goes crazy at the thought of one's partner being with someone else. I've always been surprised that people found Frank's complicity so surprising -- it seems perfectly normal to me after so many years of marriage.

Judith

What is the point of holding someone to be your "highest value", and publicly proclaiming it even after decades of marriage, if one is going to engage, with other people, in the most intimate and value-expressive activities that mutual "highest values" engage in?

For that matter, how honest are such proclamations, in the light of outside affairs? And how do they fit into "Open Marriage"?

I'm just curious. I'm not interested in bashing AR or NB for the unwisdom of what they did with one another, let alone how they handled the aftermath of it.

My focus is this: I've never understood how Objectivism and Open Marriage were compatible, unless you deliberately enter into a marriage with someone who is not your "highest value." (And why would you do that?)

Hmmm, perhaps Dagny went back to occasional "dates" with Rearden and Francisco, after "the first heat of passion" wore off of her relationship with Galt. Or maybe it never did -- maybe they're still, exclusively with each other, screwing like love-starved minks, even to this very day! :)

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, perhaps Dagny went back to occasional "dates" with Rearden and Francisco, after "the first heat of passion" wore off of her relationship with Galt. Or maybe it never did -- maybe they're still, exclusively with each other, screwing like love-starved minks, even to this very day! :)

According to Nathaniel -- in a talk titled "Objectivism Past & Future," recorded at The California Institute for Applied Objectivism, November 23, 1996 -- Dagny did go "back to occasional 'dates' with Rearden and Francisco." I forget how the subject came up; Nathaniel prefaced by saying that this will shock some of you and that he swore on his grandchildren's lives it was true. He recounted that he was saying to Ayn at some point about its being sad for Hank and Francisco to forever after be deprived of Dagny's favors, and Ayn said, "Oh, I don't think John would mind if she spent an occasional night with them." (I was glad to hear this, since it seemed to me what should have happened. I was pleased that Ayn thought so too, the characters being her characters and thus its being hers to say what they would and wouldn't do.)

Ellen

[The edit, as usual with my edits, is for a typo; I haven't changed the wording with which Judith agreed below.]

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, perhaps Dagny went back to occasional "dates" with Rearden and Francisco, after "the first heat of passion" wore off of her relationship with Galt. Or maybe it never did -- maybe they're still, exclusively with each other, screwing like love-starved minks, even to this very day! :)

According to Nathaniel -- in a talk titled "Objectivism Past & Future," recorded at The California Institute for Applied Objectivism, November 23, 1996 -- Dagny did go "back to occasional 'dates' with Rearden and Francisco." I forget how the subject came up; Nathaniel prefaced by saying that this will shock some of you and that he swore on his grandchildren's lives it was true. He recounted that he was saying to Ayn at some point about its being sad for Hank and Francisco to forever after be deprived of Dagny's favors, and Ayn said, "Oh, I don't think John would mind if she spent an occasional night with them." (I was glad to hear this, since it seemed to me what should have happened. I was pleased that Ayn thought so too, the characters being her characters and thus its being hers to say what they would and wouldn't do.)

___

I can believe this story even though even though it violates the psychological/artistic integrity of the novel. It would have to do with her rationalization of their own affair and her unrealistic view of her husband.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I can believe this story even though even though it violates the psychological/artistic integrity of the novel. It would have to do with her rationalization of their own affair and her unrealistic view of her husband.

Brant, with all due respect, how do you know that her view of her husband was unrealistic? Did you know him better than she did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I can believe this story even though even though it violates the psychological/artistic integrity of the novel. It would have to do with her rationalization of their own affair and her unrealistic view of her husband.

Brant, with all due respect, how do you know that her view of her husband was unrealistic? Did you know him better than she did?

I don't "know." I read Barbara's biography. I also read Frank's obit in the New York Times in which Ayn described him as the model for all her heroes. Her heroes wouldn't have called themselves even humorously "Mr. Ayn Rand." I also saw him several times at NBI and the Ford Hall Forum so I have some feel for who he was: a quiet, very decent man. Ayn Rand was unrealistic about many things. She had to be to write "The Fountainhead" in the middle of WWII. She had to be to essentially retire from the world at large for 14 years to write "Atlas Shrugged" full of stylized people who were not viable psychologically except for "the wet nurse." But again, I don't know, truly and absolutely--nobody does and nobody can--but in context it all makes sense. Frankly, I think she only knew part of him and buried the rest. Again, I think, I don't know. Nobody can say more.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can believe this story even though even though it violates the psychological/artistic integrity of the novel. It would have to do with her rationalization of their own affair and her unrealistic view of her husband.

I do not agree that it "violates the psychological/artistic integrity of the novel"; I think it's in perfect keeping with the novel. (I thought that Dagny should have occasional re-get-togethers with Hank and Frisco from the first time I read the novel.)

Furthermore... I almost added but I am not sure if I'm remembering this part right: I think NB also said in that talk that AR considered for a time including a scene in which Francisco and Dagny bedded together, as a tribute to their past. Now I'm going to have to relisten to the talk to see if that part was there, or if it's from someplace else that I'm remembering it.

Ellen

PS: Of course I agree that her view of her husband was unrealistic, but not with your description of why she'd have said what she did re the novel.

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I saw her going through men until she reached the top of the heap with Galt. It wasn't Galt, Rearden, Frisco. But what I most hated in the novel was the way Frisco got out of Galt's way so Galt could have Dagny. It was understandable; he had already done Galt's bidding by going on strike and Rand's bidding by giving up his relationship with Dagny, for plot reasons.

I don't think Rearden should have slapped Frisco. I think Frisco should have slapped Galt. Let them fight it out, like Shane and the homesteader did in "Shane" or the Wayne and Cliff characters did in "Red River." No, it was just let us all be rational about this. Above all, this is why I hope "Atlas Shrugged" is not made into a movie in my lifetime. I guess this is where TAS gets its "civility" kick. If so, it's the only thing "Objectivist" a la Ayn Rand still about it. Just the wrong damn thing.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RTB,

Just a little history. Nobody, and I mean nobody, was very much interested in Frank's drinking problems beyond Rand's immediate circle. Barbara mentioned it as part of her biography of Rand based on people she interviewed, just like one would mention the issues of family members in any biography. It was a VERY minor point.

Then the orthodoxy latched hold of this as one more "proof" of the evilness of the Brandens, yada yada yada. It got to the point where they alleged that Frank used empty booze bottles to paint with and other such matters. It grew and grew and grew.

It would be silly and forgettable if they had left it there. But they periodically insist on this nonsense and keep at it in the most vicious terms possible. It gets really nasty when they get on a roll.

So, rather than letting the issue die, which it would have years ago if not for the nonsense, people keep discussing Frank's drinking.

Cheers.

Michael

Yes, I'm aware. I've read all of the back and forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last I heard the movie is coming out at the end of this year. Unless you have an unusually short life expectancy you might be able to see it.

What movie ???

Atlas Shrugged. Angelina Jolie is playing Dagny Taggart. There's a thread in here somewhere about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I'd be more interested, from a moral point of view, understanding why any male would ever consent to what he did.

Why not? Haven't you ever heard of "open marriage"? After the first heat of passion wears off of a relationship, one no longer goes crazy at the thought of one's partner being with someone else. I've always been surprised that people found Frank's complicity so surprising -- it seems perfectly normal to me after so many years of marriage.

Judith

What is the point of holding someone to be your "highest value", and publicly proclaiming it even after decades of marriage, if one is going to engage, with other people, in the most intimate and value-expressive activities that mutual "highest values" engage in?

For that matter, how honest are such proclamations, in the light of outside affairs? And how do they fit into "Open Marriage"?

I'm just curious. I'm not interested in bashing AR or NB for the unwisdom of what they did with one another, let alone how they handled the aftermath of it.

My focus is this: I've never understood how Objectivism and Open Marriage were compatible, unless you deliberately enter into a marriage with someone who is not your "highest value." (And why would you do that?)

Hmmm, perhaps Dagny went back to occasional "dates" with Rearden and Francisco, after "the first heat of passion" wore off of her relationship with Galt. Or maybe it never did -- maybe they're still, exclusively with each other, screwing like love-starved minks, even to this very day! :)

REB

I agree with Mr. Bissel. Why any man (or woman---although this is debatable and a topic I won't open) would ever consent to "giving his woman away" is beyond me.

I can't think of anything more horrible or psychologically damaging to a man's self esteem than to submit to such an affront. I think most men would rather their own home be literally burned to the ground than suffer that.

I believe there's bioevolutionary reasons for why this is so distressing to the male mind.

As for so called 'open marriage'. No thanks. I'd not ever consent to such a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Mr. Bissel. Why any man (or woman---although this is debatable and a topic I won't open) would ever consent to "giving his woman away" is beyond me.

I can't think of anything more horrible or psychologically damaging to a man's self esteem than to submit to such an affront. I think most men would rather their own home be literally burned to the ground than suffer that.

I believe there's bioevolutionary reasons for why this is so distressing to the male mind.

As for so called 'open marriage'. No thanks. I'd not ever consent to such a thing.

Indeed, and it's really absurd what some people suggest, namely that Frank might have liked the idea. There is no limit to how far people can go to exculpate Rand because she must be immaculate. The most preposterous hypothesis is preferred over the idea that she might have done something objectionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last I heard the movie is coming out at the end of this year. Unless you have an unusually short life expectancy you might be able to see it.

What movie ???

Atlas Shrugged. Angelina Jolie is playing Dagny Taggart. There's a thread in here somewhere about it.

No start date. No production crew. No movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Mr. Bissel. Why any man (or woman---although this is debatable and a topic I won't open) would ever consent to "giving his woman away" is beyond me.

I can't think of anything more horrible or psychologically damaging to a man's self esteem than to submit to such an affront. I think most men would rather their own home be literally burned to the ground than suffer that.

I believe there's bioevolutionary reasons for why this is so distressing to the male mind.

As for so called 'open marriage'. No thanks. I'd not ever consent to such a thing.

People are different. Not all men see their wives as property, akin to a house. Some say they don't see what all the fuss is about regarding infidelity.

Judith

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