Ayn Rand and the World She Made

[Jonathan]

There are also some posts -- here (83242), here (83231) and here (83183) -- by Michael Moeller which go to the point.

In post 83231, Michael Moeller writes:

But you do realize that Barbara repudiated this claim when she wrote:

"I did not say he was an alcoholic when the collective was reading ATLAS. It happened much later, only beginning in the final years of my relationship with Ayn."

...but Michael doesn't cite where he got the quote. When I do a Google search, the only result I get is Michael's SOLOP post. Now, I'm not allowed to post on SOLOP (a filthy, truth-hating lynch mob of censorship-lovers rose up and got me banned there because I challenged Pigero's tantrums and lies on a variety of subjects, and the lynch mobbers resented the fact that Pigero couldn't answer me), so, would someone whom the SOLOP lynch mob hasn't banned out of fear and resentment mind asking Michael to identify his source for the quote?

Anyway, I don't recall Barbara saying that Frank was an "alcoholic" in Passion. I recall her reporting that others had identified him as one, but I'm not clear on the timeline of when they thought he was an alcoholic. When someone is reported to be at the stage of beginning to allow drinking to become a way of life and an escape from an intolerable reality, does that make him an "alcoholic" at that point? I guess we'd need to hear Barbara's definition of "alcoholic," as well as other further clarifications from her on the subject.

Michael continues:

So which story of Barbara's do you believe? Are you going to cling to the 50's drinking claim after Barbara herself repudiated it?

Let's take another look at what she wrote in her book:

Frank was always vague about what he did when Ayn and Nathaniel were together. "I went for a walk", he would say. Or, "I saw a movie." Or, "I dropped into the bar at the Mayfair Hotel for an hour or two; I know some of the men who go there, and we talked." It was not until years later that the truth about how Frank spent that afternoon and evening each week was revealed. He did go for a walk--just as far as the bar he frequented. He did visit with some of the men at the bar: they were his drinking partners. Frank had always enjoyed a drink or two in the evening--his powerful martinis were guaranteed to elicit gasps at the first sip by an unsuspecting guest--but now his drinking began to be a way of life, an escape from an intolerable reality.

A friend of Frank's--now a recovered alcoholic--who sometimes joined him for the drink or two which became three and four and five and more, was convinced Frank was an alcoholic. None of the friends Frank shared with Ayn were aware, during these years, that he drank to excess. BUt much later, his drinking was to become a painful and explosive source of friction between Ayn and Frank.

The key sentence being the friend [Ventura] who joined Frank for "three and four and five and more" drinks. In that sentence, Barbara does not say whether this happened in the 50's or the 60's.

Correct. Barbara does not say whether this happened in the 50s or 60s. She says it happened "when Ayn and Nathaniel were together." Ayn and Nathaniel were getting together (and kicking Frank out of the apartment) during the 50s and 60s.

(Were they still having sex each and every time that they got together during the time that Frank and Ventura knew each other? Probably not. But that's not relevant. Frank would not have known while leaving the apartment if Ayn and Nathaniel were going to fuck that day, or chat or do something else instead.)

Michael continues:

The paragraph before refers to the 50's, and the sentence after says "during these years" [the 50's].

Couldn't "during these years" mean "during the years that Frank was being kicked out of his home long enough so that his wife could have sex with another man"? That might include all or any of the years that Ayn and Nathaniel were having their affair.

Anyway, I would be interested in hearing Barbara answer some of these questions and criticisms. I think it would be great if all interviews and other evidence from both sides would be released so that anyone could review it -- and that would include testimony and evidence of claims made by Rand and her followers, such as the accusations made in To Whom It May Concern without evidence, the claim that Frank had rows of liquor bottles not because he drank but because he needed them to mix paints, the suggestion that Frank not only didn't mind that his wife was having sex in his marital bed with another man, but that he liked the idea since it made his wife happy, and it maybe even turned him on.

J

[Jonathan]

Glad to be of service, Ellen. Here goes:

What would you tell your husband if he asked you (hypothetical situation) to move out of your bedroom twice a week so he can have sex with his lover?

That's an excellent question, and one that I'd like to hear answered by many others, including TheValliants™, most SOLOPsists and others who think that Frank was probably gleeful that he could make his wife happy by allowing her to fuck another man in his bed. Of course, some of the SOLOPsists are gay, so we'd have to ask about a beloved, devoted, long-term partner (rather than a "husband") who had originally agreed in front of friends and other witnesses to be monogamous, but then later changed his or her mind.

I don't envision any SOLOPsists being willing to give up their own beds twice a week so that a lomg-term partner with whom they had a meaningful relationship could have sex with someone else. In fact, from what I've seen of most of them, I think that such a partner even hinting at such an arrangement would send them into one of their typical rages.

Actually, screw the hypotheticals. A better question would be, "Have you allowed your beloved life-partner to fuck someone else on a regular basis in your own bed?" Anyone can claim anything when discussing mere hypotheticals that they'll probably never face in reality.

[Robert Campbell]

Xray,

Ask another "tough" question. (If Robert is referring to his stupid queries about "moral perfection," Stuttle doesn't buy into the terms of the inquisition.)

Could you please give me a link to these alleged "stupid queries on moral perfection"?

Ask another "tough" question.

Glad to be of service, Ellen. Here goes:

What would you tell your husband if he asked you (hypothetical situation) to move out of your bedroom twice a week so he can have sex with his lover?

I believe Ms. Stuttle is referring to the "Frightful Mess" thread, starting around here:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7766&view=findpost&p=85491

Robert Campbell

[Jonathan]

Catching up on a few more of the details on this topic, I noticed this:

Heller either didn't notice or sluffed aside my pointing out that if it was Dupuytren's (I find her reply on that convincing), then it *wasn't*, as Barbara described it, "a contraction of the tendons of his hands." Heller didn't answer where she got this description (with the added adjective "painful"). I suppose she got it from Barbara and didn't notice that it contradicts the description of Dupuytren's in her own cited medical source. (Dupuytren's is a condition of the palmar fascia.) I wonder if she ever flew the tendon-contraction description past Allan, and if he corrected her. The answer to that, I suppose I'm unlikely to find out.

I'm not understanding the importance of it. Barbara and Heller described Dupuytren's as involving the contraction of "tendons" as opposed to the contraction of "pretendinous bands," which are connected to the tendons and/or exist immediately next to the tendons, so, therefore Heller, and perhaps Barbara and Allan Blumenthal, need to be grilled about not being quite technically accurate and using "tendons" too casually, and the accuracy of their reporting on Frank's condition is therefore completely in doubt until the time that the matter is cleared up with technical precision? And Allan Blumenthal would have made a gravely serious blunder if he had overlooked Heller's casual use of "tendons" when confirming that Frank had Dupuytren's? When hearing the word "tendon," Blumenthal, if he were a reliable witness as a medical professional, should have interrupted Heller's interview and insisted on discussing the technical differences between terms such as "tendons," "bands," "cords," etc.?

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Catching up on a few more of the details on this topic, I noticed this:

Heller either didn't notice or sluffed aside my pointing out that if it was Dupuytren's (I find her reply on that convincing), then it *wasn't*, as Barbara described it, "a contraction of the tendons of his hands." Heller didn't answer where she got this description (with the added adjective "painful"). I suppose she got it from Barbara and didn't notice that it contradicts the description of Dupuytren's in her own cited medical source. (Dupuytren's is a condition of the palmar fascia.) I wonder if she ever flew the tendon-contraction description past Allan, and if he corrected her. The answer to that, I suppose I'm unlikely to find out.

I'm not understanding the importance of it.

The significance is just that it's indicative of Heller's not really knowing what Dupuytren's is. If she'd understood details even of the medical source she cited, she'd have seen that the description is wrong.

Heller appears to attach some importance on Dupuytren's being the diagnosis, because she seems to think that this would be confirmative of alcoholism. It would be neither here nor there as to alcoholism.

The diagnosis sounds a likely one to me, judging from other things said about the progression of Frank's hand trouble -- surgery, then improvement, then recurrence. Dupuytren's does sometimes recur.

And Allan Blumenthal would have made a gravely serious blunder if he had overlooked Heller's casual use of "tendons" when confirming that Frank had Dupuytren's?

Not "gravely serious." I'm just curious as to whether Allan actually knows what Dupuytren's is. Maybe he doesn't, having never had experience with the condition in his medical training. He trained as a psychiatrist, not an orthopedist. There's basic medical training required for all specialties, but beyond that a lot of difference in what different specialists study.

Btw, if Joan's father did have Dupuytren's, this would have been a separate development from the course of ALS.

Something which Michael Moeller noticed about the medical source Heller cited -- I didn't register this, even though I skimmed a fair percentage of the article and didn't register that all the cases discussed were from the 1800s -- the journal she used was from 1899.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Correct. Barbara does not say whether this happened in the 50s or 60s. She says it happened "when Ayn and Nathaniel were together." Ayn and Nathaniel were getting together (and kicking Frank out of the apartment) during the 50s and 60s.

(Were they still having sex each and every time that they got together during the time that Frank and Ventura knew each other? Probably not. But that's not relevant. Frank would not have known while leaving the apartment if Ayn and Nathaniel were going to fuck that day, or chat or do something else instead.)

They rarely had sex together in the 60s. The affair was on hold during the years Ventura is reported as being part of O'ist circles. The only drinking Ventura and Frank are reported by Heller doing together is cocktails at The Russian Tea Room after Monday-night art classes.

Barbara used Ventura as a witness -- her *only* witness -- for what was happening starting in '55, which time, according to the supposedly rigorous researcher Heller, was 7 years before Ventura met Frank. This presents a serious problem for Barbara's story, however anyone tries to get rid of it. (Of course, maybe Heller's way off on when Ventura met Frank......?)

I think it would be great if all interviews and other evidence from both sides would be released so that anyone could review it [...].

Likewise.

Ellen

Edited January 17, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm not understanding the importance of it.

Jonathan,

That's easy. It's a an attempt to discredit Anne Heller.

Both Perigo and Stuttle have a burning desire to discredit Barbara Branden. There are several elements involved but they all boil down to vanity and audience.

(The audience is of a certain kind, but that's another issue. Leave it to say here that one component of this audience is that it is strongly influenced by Barbara and she won't endorse these Bozos although she once did, which is why you see such an overkill of hatred. That's secondary, though. If Barbara suddenly endorsed them, the hatred would all go away. Vanity and audience are the primaries.)

Anne's book agrees with Barbara's, and this makes it vastly more difficult to discredit Barbara. Thus Anne needs to be discredited.

Since the Blumenthals agree openly with Anne and have been cited as such on direct questioning, it will soon be time to try to discredit them.

When audience is involved, vanity knows no bounds. It calls itself "quest for truth," but remove the audience and the quest fizzles to nothing.

I personaly don't think Perigo or Stuttle give a damn about Frank, or his reputation, or his drinking problem, or his health issues, beyond how this stuff can serve their scapegoating attempts.

The funny part is that, in terms of Perigo's vanity, the issue was that Frank had no drinking problem at all and that Barbara had made it all up. After all, if she can be wrong about Frank's drinking, she will obviously be wrong about Perigo being a lush. Right? Right? Get it? She made it all up!

Stuttle screwed up for that end by getting the Blumenthals to unequivocally state (through Anne) that Frank did have a serious drinking problem. The 70's thing is a small face-saver, but the screw-up is now almost undoable.

Imagine if Sutttle actually contacted the Blumenthals and asked them about this. And imagine if they said to her what they said to Anne. That would nail it down worse than it already is. Anne could not be discredited on those issues at all, not even by insinuation. Thus, likewise, Barbara could not be discredited. Thus... well I think you can see it. No wonder Stuttle won't contact them.

I speculate, but it can get even worse. Horror of horrors, imagine if the Blumenthals thought all this was bullshit and told Stuttle to buzz off. Now that would sting. Imagine how that would feel to a vain person.

If all this sounds unbelievably petty, that's because it is.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; I have met Perigo only once but from that encounter I thought he might have a drinking problem. My memory was that it was fairly early in the evening and that only beer was being served. If Barbara says that Perigo I suspect she's correct.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

It's more social metaphysics than that. The problem for Perigo (at least according to an email he sent me long ago) isn't the drinking. It's the public perception of the drinking.

Apropos, how many people with drinking problems do you know who advertise it?

They don't.

They hide it. They talk it down. They make excuses.

You can hide it well and convince folks, too. I know. I used to do it.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Ellen,

Here is what Heller said:

As to Dupuytren’s, they [Allan and Joan] not only support the likelihood of Frank’s having had it; they recall having been told that Duypuytren’s was the diagnosis at the time.

I seriously doubt that Allan is mistaken about having heard this, even if he never treated people for (or with) this condition.

As far as Frank's excess drinking in the 70s is concerned, I consider it well established. How much he drank from 55-70 is an open question in light of the date that Ventura apparently met Frank.

As I said before, it's possible that Frank told Ventura that he had been drinking for a while, perhaps do to family circumstances.

Heller and Burns place his heavy drinking at least to the mid-60s (if not before), if I recall correctly.

I find it significant that neither Binswanger nor Mayhew raise Frank's drinking as an issue with the books.

-Neil Parille

Edited January 18, 2010 by Neil Parille

[Neil Parille]

Ellen,

Here was Anne Heller's response (in part):

What I have to say on these and other subjects is for the most part contained in my book. You will agree, disagree, conduct further research, interview Frank’s doctors, contact the Blumenthals–just as you please. I do not want to further dissect this matter or become involved in a debate over controversial passages in someone else’s book.

I have some suggestions:

1. Contact the Blumenthals (AB is on facebook).

2. Contact Don Ventura (has his own website and is on FB).

3. Contact Shoshana Milgram and ask if she has made a tentative conclusion on this.

4. Contact Jeff Britting at the archives and ask him what his position is.

5. Contact Jim Valliant and ask if he has done archival research since PARC on this issue (he is on FB and I have his email if you want it).

6. Contact the editor of 100 Voices (Scott McConnell) and ask what Eloise and others say in the book.

7. Contact Jennifer Burns and ask for details and, in particular, if there is evidence in that archives that she didn't mention.

8. Contact Marc Schwalb (who has copies of all or most of Barbara's interviews and statements).

-Neil Parille

Edited January 18, 2010 by Neil Parille

[merjet]

I haven't followed all this. Supposedly Frank O'Connor stopped painting due to hand pain. It makes little sense to me that the explanation for it is Dupuytren's contracture.

1. Like Wikipedia says here, the affliction is usually painless.

2. Regarding its effect on using the hand, the affliction limits extending one or two fingers backward like it shows in the picture at the above link. I have this affliction in both hands, more so in my (dominant) right hand. I have never had pain from it. It doesn't affect my using a pencil. The middle joint of my ring finger (both hands) doesn't initially bend as easily as my other fingers from a fully extended position. After it starts bending, no further difference is felt. I find it hard to imagine it would affect trying to paint.

I'm not understanding the importance of it. Barbara and Heller described Dupuytren's as involving the contraction of "tendons" as opposed to the contraction of "pretendinous bands," which are connected to the tendons and/or exist immediately next to the tendons, so, therefore Heller, and perhaps Barbara and Allan Blumenthal, need to be grilled about not being quite technically accurate and using "tendons" too casually, and the accuracy of their reporting on Frank's condition is therefore completely in doubt until the time that the matter is cleared up with technical precision? And Allan Blumenthal would have made a gravely serious blunder if he had overlooked Heller's casual use of "tendons" when confirming that Frank had Dupuytren's? When hearing the word "tendon," Blumenthal, if he were a reliable witness as a medical professional, should have interrupted Heller's interview and insisted on discussing the technical differences between terms such as "tendons," "bands," "cords," etc.?

I don't understand the importance either. According to both the Wikipedia article and here, the contracture is in the pulmar fascia (not the tendons), which affects the tendons.

[Jonathan]

The significance is just that it's indicative of Heller's not really knowing what Dupuytren's is. If she'd understood details even of the medical source she cited, she'd have seen that the description is wrong.

I disagree that it's indicative of Heller's not knowing what Dupuytren's is, just as I don't think that someone's calling a photocopy made on a Toshiba machine a "Xerox" would be indicative of their not knowing what photocopies really are. Likewise, I've read technical texts about painting, photography and sculpture in which the authors will use a term which is technically incorrect -- perhaps calling a filter a "gel," or a sprue or runner a "gate" -- but it would be silly to take that as an indication that these authors didn't really know what filters or sprues were.

And I would expect that such authors might ignore people who were questioning them about such minutiae. It would come across as playing "gotcha" with technicalities which are completely irrelevant to the author's point.

I just did a Google search for "Dupuytren's contracture tendon," and the first site listed in the search results says, "Note that the still frequent diagnosis 'contracted flexor tendons' for Dupuytren's contracture is somewhat misleading because it is not the tendons that contract." So, it sounds as if Heller isn't alone, and that a lot of people, including doctors who are aware of the difference between "tendons" and "pretendinous bands," frequently use the word "tendon" to describe bands which technically are not tendons.

They rarely had sex together in the 60s.

As I said above, how often they were still having sex is not relevant. The only thing that's relevant is whether or not they were they still meeting for private time and kicking Frank out of the apartment.

The affair was on hold during the years Ventura is reported as being part of O'ist circles.

In your SOLOP post #83263 you claimed that the affair was "predominantly 'on hold''" where here you left out the word "predominantly." So which is it? Is your view that the affair was "on hold" or that it was "predominantly on hold"?

Does "the affair was on hold" (predominantly or otherwise) mean that Ayn and Nathaniel did not at any time kick Frank out of the apartment during the time that Frank knew Ventura? If so, will you please cite your sources for that information? (I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall that Ayn and Nathaniel were still getting together despite not always having sex; if I'm remembering correctly, Nathaniel was often relieved when Ayn didn't want to use their private time for sex; and I don't recall reading that Ayn and/or Nathaniel were sharing with Frank information about which occasions they were or were not having sex after he had been asked to leave the apartment.)

Barbara used Ventura as a witness -- her *only* witness -- for what was happening starting in '55,

Does Barbara specifically state that Frank started drinking in '55?

which time, according to the supposedly rigorous researcher Heller, was 7 years before Ventura met Frank. This presents a serious problem for Barbara's story, however anyone tries to get rid of it. (Of course, maybe Heller's way off on when Ventura met Frank......?)

I agree that it may present problems for Barbara's story, which is why I'd like to hear her response. The issue appears to come down to specifically what she meant by "during these years." Does it mean that Frank began drinking on the first day of the affair? Or does it mean that at some unspecified point after the first day of the affair Frank began drinking to excess? If Frank drank to excess beginning in, say, '56 or '62, either way it would have been "during the years" of the affair. As I understand it, it would have been during the time that Frank was being kicked out of his home for the purpose of allowing his wife to have sex with another man.

J

[Neil Parille]

Jonathan,

Barbara says that:

It was not until years later that the truth about how Frank spent that afternoon and evening each week was revealed. He did go for a walk--just as far as the bar he frequented. (p. 272.)

The most natural reading is that Frank's drinking started roughly at the time the affair commenced (and as a result, in part, of it). If Frank started drinking heavy around 62 then any connection between his drinking and the affair is lessened.

-Neil Parille

[Jonathan]

The most natural reading is that Frank's drinking started roughly at the time the affair commenced (and as a result, in part, of it).

That could be. I think that Barbara should comment and clear up the matter.

If Frank started drinking heavy around 62 then any connection between his drinking and the affair is lessened.

I disagree. It might indicate that it took a few years of being cuckolded to turn him to drinking heavily. It might suggest that he had originally hoped that the affair would be over quickly after Ayn and Nathaniel got it out of their systems, but then, after a few years, it finally sank in that it was going to be a chronic or perhaps even permanent intrusion into his life, and recognizing it wore him down.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Neil to Jonathan:

Jonathan,

Barbara says that:

It was not until years later that the truth about how Frank spent that afternoon and evening each week was revealed. He did go for a walk--just as far as the bar he frequented. (p. 272.)

The most natural reading is that Frank's drinking started roughly at the time the affair commenced (and as a result, in part, of it). If Frank started drinking heavy around 62 then any connection between his drinking and the affair is lessened.

-Neil Parille

Barbara continues directly in the paragraph being quoted above:

BB, pg. 272:

He did visit with some of the men at the bar; they were his drinking partners. Frank had always enjoyed a drink or two in the evening--his powerful martinis were guaranteed to elicit gasps at the first sip by an unsuspecting guest--but NOW [my emphasis] his drinking began to be a way of life, an escape from an intolerable reality.

If Jonathan were to get out Barbara's book and notice the surrounding context of the material quoted, through to the last paragraph of the chapter, which reads:

BB, pg. 279:

It was in this tortured, explosive fusion of overheated emotions, of anguish and rage and frustrated longings and bitterness--and of love and sexual passion and ecstatic fulfillment--that Ayn at last completed the writing of John Galt's speech.

he might see that the "NOW" being spoken of in that sentence is the heyday of the AR/NB affair. By '62, when Heller says Ventura met Frank, the affair had been on hold for some years. The occasional sexual encounters which occurred after Ayn went into a depression following the reception of Atlas weren't an "afternoon and evening each week." And '62 is clearly not the time period the events of which Barbara is talking about on pages 272-73.

Barbara continues the next paragraph after "an intolerable reality" by saying:

BB, pg. 272:

A friend of Frank's--now [there meaning at the time of Passion's writing] a recovered alcoholic--who sometimes joined him for the drink or two which became three and four and five and more, was convinced that Frank was an alcoholic.

"A friend of Frank's [...] who sometimes joined him [...]" -- where? At the bar Barbara says Frank frequented within easy walking distance of the East 36th Street apartment at which the O'Connors were living (Barbara describes Frank as mentioning the Mayfair Hotel bar).

I repeat that the only reference Heller makes to Frank and Ventura drinking together sets the locale as the Russian Tea Room after Monday-night art classes (which classes Frank wasn't taking when the affair started).

Heller, pg. 358:

On Monday nights they [Frank and Ventura], Joan, and an actor named Phillip Smith attended Robert Beverly Hale's lectures on artistic anatomy at the League. Afterward, they went to the Russian Tea Room for cocktails.

Along with the discrepancy in dates and in the status of the affair, and the difference between an afternoon and evening when Ayn and NB were together versus Monday night after art classes, this is not a description of someone who was a drinking companion of Frank's at a bar Frank frequented in the neighborhood of his apartment. The Russian Tea Room is a fair piece from where the O'Connors lived -- some 21 to 22 uptown blocks and two of the long crosstown blocks.

Maybe Ventura was also drinking with Frank in the 36th-Street neighborhood -- after, of course, Ventura met Frank. If so, Heller doesn't mention this.

===

Replying to Neil's post #260:

Ellen,

Here is what Heller said:

As to Dupuytren’s, they [Allan and Joan] not only support the likelihood of Frank’s having had it; they recall having been told that Duypuytren’s was the diagnosis at the time.

I seriously doubt that Allan is mistaken about having heard this, even if he never treated people for (or with) this condition.

I think it's unlikely that Allan is mistaken about having heard this. And, as I've said, I think the diagnosis is a likely one. It doesn't establish a thing one way or the other about alcoholism.

As far as Frank's excess drinking in the 70s is concerned, I consider it well established. How much he drank from 55-70 is an open question in light of the date that Ventura apparently met Frank.

I consider solitary drinking in his studio in the 70s well enough established. As to whether "excess" or not, I think there's question remaining.

As I [Neil] said before, it's possible that Frank told Ventura that he had been drinking for a while, perhaps do to family circumstances.

Even if that's true, Neil, it doesn't give Barbara a witness for what Frank was doing while Ayn and NB were having their trysts. As to what Frank might have told Ventura, I find the idea implausible that even if he were quite drunk Frank would have revealed any information about Ayn's and Nathaniel's relationship. Recall what a gentleman Frank was, and that he was sworn to secrecy (according to both BB and NB). What seems most likely to me is that Ventura himself was speculating about Frank's drinking history.

Heller and Burns place his heavy drinking at least to the mid-60s (if not before), if I recall correctly.

Burns states:

Burns, pg. 157:

His destination on many of these afternoons and evenings was a neighborhood bar.

But of course her source for this is pp. 272-73 of Passion. I don't think that Burns was much interested in the issue, which is well off the track of the thrust of her book.

Heller writes:

Heller, pg. 263:

The Brandens later claimed to have discovered that he was drinking heavily in a local bar--an assertion that has been bitterly disputed by Rand's hard-core followers, but that what evidence there is suggests is true.

The "later" in the first sentence is misplaced. The sentence should read "The Brandens claimed to have discovered later [...]." Also it was only Barbara who claimed to have discovered it. Nathaniel accepted that Barbara's report was correct.

The irony of Heller's statement is that evidence *she herself* provided -- of when and how Ventura met Frank -- instead of suggesting that Barbara's discovery is true, is contrary to Barbara's story.

I [Neil] find it significant that neither Binswanger nor Mayhew raise Frank's drinking as an issue with the books.

I do not. Ever heard of the Peikovian doctrine of the arbitrary? (I haven't gotten around to reading Mayhew's review. Possibly I'll find the omission of mention -- assuming you're right that Mayhew doesn't mention the issue -- strange in the context. Binswanger I think wouldn't have wanted to dignify the claim by granting it sufficient cognitive status to mention it.)

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is an unspoken linear premise used by the Crusaders in the War of Frankian Sobriety.

As a person who suffered with alcoholism and beat it (at least for the last 19 years), I find the premise hilarious.

Here is it:

Once a person starts drinking heavily, he never stops.

Anyone who believes this knows nothing about heavy drinking problems. I'm not referring to quitting for good. I'm referring to periods that come and go.

I never see discussed in the War of Frankian Sobriety the possibility of Frank, say, going off for a time into the world of heavy drinking, then laying off for a period (either sobriety or light drinking). Then going back to heavy drinking. Then laying off. Then going back to heavy drinking. Then laying off. And so on.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who has lived with a person who goes off into alcoholism or problem drinking at a late stage in life knows that it almost never appears suddenly out of nowhere. This problem builds up over time and operates in waves. And the periods--both heavy drinking and laying off--can be quite long.

It's called the way human beings are.

Those who think they have become the world's greatest experts in Dupuytren's contracture because they just started researching it should expend some efforts in researching alcoholism. (It sounds so cool and learned and grown-up when you repeat "Dupuytren's" over and over and over, doesn't it? huh? huh? huh?)

But I suppose if Rand had to have lived as a statue developmental-wise, instead of a person, for the Crusaders in the War of Frankian Sobriety, her husband had to be an emotional statue, too.

One that doesn't develop, it just cracks.

What a warped view of alcohol problems.

I suggest the people who operate under this premise stay far, far away from people with drinking problems. They will only make things worse.

But all is not lost for the person with the warped view if the problem drinker is a loved one. He will not shut everyone out. On the contrary. I guarantee that problem drinkers love having these folks around. Listening to pure bullshit about drinking when you are living it and know better is a hell of good reason to pour out another one and drink a toast to hypocrisy. It's one of the best excuses around to get drunk. I know. I used to do that, too.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Ellen,

I do not believe in Peikoff's doctrine of the abitrary. Even if I did, the claim that Frank consumed more alcohol than was good for his mental or physical health has cognitive status. Nor is it arbitrary in the sense of lacking any evidence.

Mayhew says Goddess of the Market is riddled with factual errors:

The book is filled with errors—major and minor —concerning Rand’s life and the nature of her thought.

http://theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-winter/ayn-rand-jennifer-burns.asp

I believe Binswanger also says the book contains errors.

Since they both mention Rand's use of Benzedrine (and downplay it), why ignore the more sensational claim that Barbara is correct about Frank's drinking?

Yes, it's an argument from silence; however I think it has some strength.

-Neil Parille

[Chris Grieb]

There is an unspoken linear premise used by the Crusaders in the War of Frankian Sobriety.

As a person who suffered with alcoholism and beat it (at least for the last 19 years), I find the premise hilarious.

Here is it:

Once a person starts drinking heavily, he never stops.

Anyone who believes this knows nothing about heavy drinking problems. I'm not referring to quitting for good. I'm referring to periods that come and go.

I never see discussed in the War of Frankian Sobriety the possibility of Frank, say, going off for a time into the world of heavy drinking, then laying off for a period (either sobriety or light drinking). Then going back to heavy drinking. Then laying off. Then going back to heavy drinking. Then laying off. And so on.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who has lived with a person who goes off into alcoholism or problem drinking at a late stage in life knows that it almost never appears suddenly out of nowhere. This problem builds up over time and operates in waves. And the periods--both heavy drinking and laying off--can be quite long.

It's called the way human beings are.

Those who think they have become the world's greatest experts in Dupuytren's contracture because they just started researching it should expend some efforts in researching alcoholism. (It sounds so cool and learned and grown-up when you repeat "Dupuytren's" over and over and over, doesn't it? huh? huh? huh?)

But I suppose if Rand had to have lived as a statue developmental-wise, instead of a person, for the Crusaders in the War of Frankian Sobriety, her husband had to be an emotional statue, too.

One that doesn't develop, it just cracks.

What a warped view of alcohol problems.

I suggest the people who operate under this premise stay far, far away from people with drinking problems. They will only make things worse.

But all is not lost for the person with the warped view if the problem drinker is a loved one. He will not shut everyone out. On the contrary. I guarantee that problem drinkers love having these folks around. Listening to pure bullshit about drinking when you are living it and know better is a hell of good reason to pour out another one and drink a toast to hypocrisy. It's one of the best excuses around to get drunk. I know. I used to do that, too.

Michael

Michael; Thanks for this post. My father went on the occasional binge but other times would not be drinking. It was only in the last years he stopped completely. Part of the reason he stopped was someone was with him all the time.

[Robert Campbell]

Ms. Stuttle now insists that nothing be read into Bob Mayhew's failure to mention claims about Frank O'Connor's drinking in his negative review of Jennifer Burns' book, or into Harry Binswanger's failure to mention such claims in his semi-private pan of the Burns book and his negative remarks on Volokh Conspiracy about Anne Heller's book.

I [Neil] find it significant that neither Binswanger nor Mayhew raise Frank's drinking as an issue with the books.

I do not. Ever heard of the Peikovian doctrine of the arbitrary? (I haven't gotten around to reading Mayhew's review. Possibly I'll find the omission of mention -- assuming you're right that Mayhew doesn't mention the issue -- strange in the context. Binswanger I think wouldn't have wanted to dignify the claim by granting it sufficient cognitive status to mention it.)

Ms. Stuttle cites the Peikovian doctrine of the arbitrary assertion to explain Dr. Mayhew and Dr. Binswanger's reticence on this issue. Not that Ms. Stuttle subscribes to the doctrine herself, of course, but she claims to be able to predict their behavior because they claim to believe it.

Unfortunately, the doctrine makes no clear prescription against responding to the allegedly arbitrary: it says, um, er, that you can't/mustn't/needn't answer an arbitrary assertion, which you may/may not be able to redeem and restore to meaningfulness.

What's more, Leonard Peikoff himself is on record denying that Frank O'Connor ever had a drinking problem. He wasn't exactly reticent after his 1987 Ford Hall Forum speech.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7802&view=findpost&p=82489

Umm, he was certainly not an alcoholic—uh, I gather that that’s a charge that’s been raised against him. I saw that man regularly day and night. In my entire life, I saw him have too much to drink once. And the manifestation of it was that he overtipped the waiter, which Ayn Rand asked him in some length why he did… I defy an alcoholic to survive 20 minutes in her apartment!

I believe, if you want some idea of objectivity in biography, the source of that was … story, so far as I can pin it down, was a cleaning woman who found empty liquor bottles in his studio after he died. He used those bottles to mix paints in.

Robert Campbell

PS. Does adherence in the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion also explain Bob Mayhew's failure to cite or mention Jim Valliant's opus in his review?

[Jonathan]

If Jonathan were to get out Barbara's book and notice the surrounding context of the material quoted, through to the last paragraph of the chapter, which reads:

BB, pg. 279:

It was in this tortured, explosive fusion of overheated emotions, of anguish and rage and frustrated longings and bitterness--and of love and sexual passion and ecstatic fulfillment--that Ayn at last completed the writing of John Galt's speech.

he might see that the "NOW" being spoken of in that sentence is the heyday of the AR/NB affair.

Yeah, I think you make a good case for our needing more information from Barbara. As I've been saying, I think Barbara needs to clarify the issue. Which years did she mean to claim that Frank was drinking heavily, and what are the details of the testimony of the people she relied on to come to her conclusions? Can she provide such details, and, if not, can she at least give some legitimate reasons for not providing them?

By '62, when Heller says Ventura met Frank, the affair had been on hold for some years. The occasional sexual encounters which occurred after Ayn went into a depression following the reception of Atlas weren't an "afternoon and evening each week."

Well, as I asked earlier, do we know that Frank was not being kicked out of the apartment during the time that he knew Ventura? Do we have reason to believe that Frank's perspective was anything other than that his wife was still having an affair with another man?

Even if that's true, Neil, it doesn't give Barbara a witness for what Frank was doing while Ayn and NB were having their trysts. As to what Frank might have told Ventura, I find the idea implausible that even if he were quite drunk Frank would have revealed any information about Ayn's and Nathaniel's relationship. Recall what a gentleman Frank was, and that he was sworn to secrecy (according to both BB and NB).

I don't find it implausible at all that Frank, or anyone else, would reveal private information while drunk. I've seen plenty of drunk people blab about personal matters despite being very private and gentlemanly (or ladylike) when sober.

But even if Frank was exceptionally good at holding his tongue while smashed, he wouldn't have had to go into much detail while complaining about things at home in order to give Ventura, or other drinking buddies, the information they needed to get the picture. He could have simply said that he wasn't happy with his home life, and hadn't been for some time. Or he might have become short with people when the subject of his wife came up, or changed the subject. There are any number of possible ways that an intoxicated, cuckolded husband might reveal information, intentionally or not, about the source of his unhappiness.

And Frank wasn't the only person who might have informed Ventura about Frank's drinking habits. Barbara mentions that there were men -- plural -- who were Frank's drinking buddies. Ventura may have met some of them while drinking with Frank, and recognized the familiarity they shared with him. Ventura may have heard them talking about past drinking exploits in which Frank participated. There are any number of possible ways in which Ventura could have learned quite a lot about Frank from other drinkers.

What seems most likely to me is that Ventura himself was speculating about Frank's drinking history.

Have you tried to contact Ventura and ask him yourself?

On SOLOP you wrote,

"Although I find the idea of mixing paints in long-necked bottles definitely suspicious, neither does Leonard specify that the bottles were long-necked (as has been assumed)."

As has been assumed by whom? I find the idea of Frank mixing artists paints in any type of booze bottles, be they long-necked or short-necked, to be beyond suspicious. Here's an idea: Take a serious painting class that is similar to the ones that Frank had taken. Buy some paints and get yourself some high-resolution scans or high-quality prints of Frank's work. Then mix your paints in the booze bottles of your choice and try to achieve the same look of his manner of painting -- the viscosity of the paints, the blending of various tones with each other, the brushwork, etc. Test for yourself if mixing paints in booze bottles makes any sense, if it allows you to achieve the same results as those on Frank's canvasses, or if it's ridiculously cumbersome and fraught with a variety of problems for a host of technical reasons.

You asked, on the same SOLOP thread,

"Might Frank's cupboard stash have been collected with the thought of painting still-lifes?"

Now that would be a very reasonable explanation, but it's not the explanation that Peikoff gave. He didn't say that Frank was keeping booze bottles as props, but as containers for mixing paints.

J

Edited January 20, 2010 by Jonathan

[Robert Campbell]

Ms. Stuttle,

As a major participant at SOLOP, do you endorse Lindsay Perigo's most recent round of bannings?

Are you in favor of his new policy of blocking participants without announcing that he has done so?

In light of this new policy, do you consider his latest marketing claim

SOLO remains the most open Objectivist forum there is. I've no wish to change that and every wish to continue it. This is not a "loyalty-oath" site. It *is* a site where honesty and sincerity are at a premium, however "uncool" those qualities may be in this honor-forsaken world.

to be free of truth-in-packaging issues?

http://www.solopassion.com/node/7297

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

I told Perigo in early January that I wasn't planning on posting in the near future, if again (I don't recall my exact wording).

I was able to log in until recently (before the Burns/Valliant Symposium).

When I asked Perigo why I had been banned yesterday, he said because I "flounced."

-Neil Parille

[BaalChatzaf]

I told Perigo in early January that I wasn't planning on posting in the near future, if again (I don't recall my exact wording).

I was able to log in until recently (before the Burns/Valliant Symposium).

When I asked Perigo why I had been banned yesterday, he said because I "flounced."

-Neil Parille

What is "flouncing"?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Robert Campbell]

Bob K,

"Flouncing" means making a melodramatic public exit, as a stereotypical prima donna might do.

Robert C