Ayn Rand and the World She Made

[Roger Bissell]

What follows is a "rant:"

Enough, already! If I were a conservative or a liberal, perusing the internet looking for evidence of the political or philosophical irrelevance of Objectivism in today's culture, I am sure that I could find much evidence to the contrary.

However, I think that the endless discussion of whether or not Frank had wine in his paint bottles, or whether he drank heavily, might just fit the bill as evidence that some Objectivists have lost their grasp of issues that are important to the philosophy or to the current state of the world.

It is unlikely to expect that proponents of the "Frank-became-a-depressed-alcoholic-during-or-because-of-his-wife's-affair" School, or the "Frank-was-a-contented-artist/empty-wine-bottle-collector-who-was-pleased-by-and-unaffected-by-his-wife's-affair" School - will ever be able to convince their rivals. Furthermore, this subject has been beaten to death what meager evidence there was, and has now fallen into a closed-loop of unverifiable speculation.

Of course, anyone can discuss whatever they want regarding Objectivism, here or elsewhere. And who am I to say that discussion should be limited? Actually, I am not. But to anyone outside of Objectivism, it just looks like Objectivism cannot stay with issues that are important.

So there! [End of Rant]

Jerry, my friend and faithful assistant <g>, I think you're missing the point of all this nit-picking and avid focus on odd personal details: there is (still!) a huge battle going on over exactly ~who~ is deserving of respect, and morally deserving to speak, as leader(s) of the battle against mysticism-altruism-collectivism. If "THE BRANDENS" (including those who can be pigeon-holed with them, including Robert C., Chris S., David K. et al, as well as Anne H., Jennifer B., etc.) can be tarred-and-feathered as being immoral liars and distorters of "THE TRUTH" about Ayn Rand and her "LOYAL FOLLOWERS," then said "LOYAL FOLLOWERS" will have a clear, unimpeded path to being the ONLY credible source of "THE TRUTH" about Objectivism and its position on "issues that are important."

So, you see, as long as there is all this infighting for accreditation and/or credibility, we are going to be treated to/regaled with/assaulted with all of these tacky debates about personalities.

If I were going to indulge in such, I would say something like:

I don't care whether Frank O. was an alcoholic or not.

I think his art sucked,

I'm not impressed with his paintings, and I think he was a unwise, passive fool to get/stay involved with a narcissistic abuser like AR.

I don't care whether Lindsey P. is an alcoholic or not. I'm not impressed with his magazine, and I think he is an obnoxious, emotionalistic, power-lusting blowhard.

But I've probably already taken too much time away from my other, more productive pursuits. Such as:

fixing the index to Nathaniel's new book (2-1/2 pages to go!),

editing/revising my talk on "Aristotle, Ayn Rand, and the Logical Structure of the Political Spectrum" aka "The Logic of Liberty" (to be delivered this Sunday at the Los Angeles Objectivist Network meeting in Sherman Oaks, California),

mixing the tracks for my new CD ("Reflective Trombone," now projected for release in March or April).

So, cheers!

REB

[Chris Grieb]

Roger; All I can say to your last post is "Good for you."

I must also add I agree with much of what Jerry says.

[tjohnson]

1) Frank, like a true Randian hero, was happy that the woman he loved found someone else to love and value enough to have extramarital sex with -- and enough to risk the possibility of throwing away her marriage. Frank adored Ayn and was confident enough in his status as a real-life Frisco or Rearden that he wouldn't have felt threatened by the idea of his wife having sex with a man who was younger and much more intelligent and ambitious than he was.

Holy crap! Is this what "a true Randian hero" would do?

[Jerry Biggers]

What follows is a "rant:"

Enough, already! If I were a conservative or a liberal, perusing the internet looking for evidence of the political or philosophical irrelevance of Objectivism in today's culture, I am sure that I could find much evidence to the contrary.

However, I think that the endless discussion of whether or not Frank had wine in his paint bottles, or whether he drank heavily, might just fit the bill as evidence that some Objectivists have lost their grasp of issues that are important to the philosophy or to the current state of the world.

It is unlikely to expect that proponents of the "Frank-became-a-depressed-alcoholic-during-or-because-of-his-wife's-affair" School, or the "Frank-was-a-contented-artist/empty-wine-bottle-collector-who-was-pleased-by-and-unaffected-by-his-wife's-affair" School - will ever be able to convince their rivals. Furthermore, this subject has been beaten to death what meager evidence there was, and has now fallen into a closed-loop of unverifiable speculation.

Of course, anyone can discuss whatever they want regarding Objectivism, here or elsewhere. And who am I to say that discussion should be limited? Actually, I am not. But to anyone outside of Objectivism, it just looks like Objectivism cannot stay with issues that are important.

So there! [End of Rant]

Jerry, my friend and faithful assistant <g>, I think you're missing the point of all this nit-picking and avid focus on odd personal details: there is (still!) a huge battle going on over exactly ~who~ is deserving of respect, and morally deserving to speak, as leader(s) of the battle against mysticism-altruism-collectivism. If "THE BRANDENS" (including those who can be pigeon-holed with them, including Robert C., Chris S., David K. et al, as well as Anne H., Jennifer B., etc.) can be tarred-and-feathered as being immoral liars and distorters of "THE TRUTH" about Ayn Rand and her "LOYAL FOLLOWERS," then said "LOYAL FOLLOWERS" will have a clear, unimpeded path to being the ONLY credible source of "THE TRUTH" about Objectivism and its position on "issues that are important."

So, you see, as long as there is all this infighting for accreditation and/or credibility, we are going to be treated to/regaled with/assaulted with all of these tacky debates about personalities.

If I were going to indulge in such, I would say something like:

I don't care whether Frank O. was an alcoholic or not. I think his art sucked, and I think he was a unwise, passive fool to get/stay involved with a narcissistic abuser like AR.

I don't care whether Lindsey P. is an alcoholic or not. I'm not impressed with his magazine, and I think he is an obnoxious, emotionalistic, power-lusting blowhard.

But I've probably already taken too much time away from my other, more productive pursuits. Such as:

fixing the index to Nathaniel's new book (2-1/2 pages to go!),

editing/revising my talk on "Aristotle, Ayn Rand, and the Logical Structure of the Political Spectrum" aka "The Logic of Liberty" (to be delivered this Sunday at the Los Angeles Objectivist Network meeting in Sherman Oaks, California),

mixing the tracks for my new CD ("Reflective Trombone," now projected for release in March or April).

So, cheers!

REB

Roger,

I see that you are occupying yourself with more productive activities, rather than nit-picking. But let me unpick a few nits:

Even if the LOYAL FOLLOWERS (I would refer to them as "dogmatic devotees," "ARIans," but whatever!) did not have the Brandens, et al, as scapegoats to blame, they still would not have their desired "clear, unimpeded path to being the ONLY credible source of 'THE TRUTH' about Objectivism...."

Issues around the Kelley-Peikoff split (i.e., tolerance of opposing views, "Open Objectivism," libertarianism, etc.) would still exist, and these issues are much more serious than attempting to discredit the Brandens. Many other issues such as altering of Rand's oral presentations to suit the ARI editors' liking, have been discussed in this forum and at great length.

A major cause of their (the ARIans) dogmatic attitude has been the attempt by Peikoff and associates, to close discussion about Objectivism. This is based, apparently, on the crazy notion that to admit that Rand ever made any mistake of consequence (other than the Brandens) in the presentation or elaboration of her ideas - or that her own personal conduct was anything but a perfect example of applied Objectivism, would allow doubt in, and that would weaken the whole foundation of Objectivism, allowing it to crash.

The above issues are the weaknesses in their dogma that will continue to impede the growth of Objectivism. The Brandens (and Frank's wine bottles) are a derivative of their dogmatism. Perhaps they feel that if they can persuade their devotees that there is an "enemy inside" which is to blame for their failures to advance Objectivism, then they will be able to keep their loyalty. But this strategy is doomed to continued failure, and will only serve to discredit Objectivism and keep it from future successes.

"Your friend and faithful assistant,"

Jerry

[Robert Campbell]

GS,

1) Frank, like a true Randian hero, was happy that the woman he loved found someone else to love and value enough to have extramarital sex with -- and enough to risk the possibility of throwing away her marriage. Frank adored Ayn and was confident enough in his status as a real-life Frisco or Rearden that he wouldn't have felt threatened by the idea of his wife having sex with a man who was younger and much more intelligent and ambitious than he was.

Holy crap! Is this what "a true Randian hero" would do?

When Ayn Rand wanted him to.

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Ellen,

I miswrote. I meant the latter.

What I don't understand is your claim that this story has the mark of a "tall tale."

As I see it:

1. Barbara Weiss told Barbara in 1983 that Eloise told her that bottles were found "each week."

2. In 1986, Barbara publishes Passion claiming that bottles were found "each week."

3. In 1987, Peikoff claims that Eloise told him that bottles were found after Frank's death.

4. From 87 on, Barbara misremembers what Weiss told her after being asked about Peikoff's claim. (Looks like Walker made the same mistake in TARC.)

5. In 2009, Heller says Eloise told Weiss that bottles were found "each week."

So where is the "tall tale"? The original version (as related by Weiss) is more dramatic. Bottles each week is evidence of excess drinking. Bottles after death isn't proof of much of anything.

It's possible that Eloise said both (bottles each week and some after Frank died), that she said only each week, that she said only after his death. It's possible that she changed her story.

Why assume that Peikoff is more accurate in reporting what Eloise said instead of Weiss?

I'd point out that Heller accepts the "each week" account. And Heller had access to: Weiss' interview, Eloise's statement(s) to Barbara, Peikoff's claim in 1987, and the Eloise interview in 100 Voices.

That's more information than you or I have.

-Neil Parille

Edited January 22, 2010 by Neil Parille

[Ellen Stuttle]

First, a quick note to Jerry Biggers. (I underlined so the reply might have a better chance of being noticed sandwiched before further posts, one of them very long, to follow.)

How ironic I find it to see *you* complaining of these details being discussed. I recall your previously expressing anger at all the smearing articles about Rand which have appeared in abundance following in the wake of the new books. Where do you think the smearers get the material they use? The biographical parts of it start with the Brandens, and Heller added a supposed "objective" second and extension. (The Burns book, though it has some negative stuff, I think is in a different category and wouldn't of itself have provided much fuel for the desire to consign Rand to the flames.)

Ellen

[Robert Campbell]

I guess the body-snatchers have just about finished invading.

How ironic I find it to see *you* complaining of these details being discussed. I recall your previously expressing anger at all the smearing articles about Rand which have appeared in abundance following in the wake of the new books. Where do you think the smearers get the material they use? The biographical parts of it start with the Brandens, and Heller added a supposed "objective" second and extension. (The Burns book, though it has some negative stuff, I think is in a different category and wouldn't of itself have provided much fuel for the desire to consign Rand to the flames.)

All Ms. Stuttle has to do now is stick an "as well" at the end of an occasional sentence, or toss in a "diminishing" or "wanking" here or there, and no one will be able to tell the difference between her posts and Jim Valliant's … or Lindsay Perigo's.

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

Skipping, since it's just three posts above, your summary of the sequence, which I think is accurate.

[....]

So where is the "tall tale"? The original version (as related by Weiss) is more dramatic. Bottles each week is evidence of excess drinking. Bottles after death isn't proof of much of anything.

Strong objection to your idea that "Bottles each week is evidence of excess drinking" (though agreed, and I'm glad to see you saying it, that "Bottles after death isn't proof of much of anything"). As I've pointed out to you in off-list discussion, and have said on-list, you would have to have quantities of what kind of bottles of what strength alcohol to have any evidence of excess drinking from "bottles each week." How many bottles? Of what?

If I drank beer in bottles instead of cans, there would be 10-12 bottles each week, plus a wine bottle about every two weeks, plus a dry-sherry bottle maybe once a month taken out in the trash from this place. This isn't remotely "evidence of excess drinking." Frank, who had a much larger body size then I have, could have consumed proportionately more alcohol without this being remotely "evidence of excess drinking." If it was seven fifths of hard alcohol each week, then you're talking serious trouble. A pint's worth of 80 proof (which would equal 6.4 ounces of straight alcohol) per day could at minimum make a person a good candidate for cirrhosis and would sure not be recommended for someone with arteriosclerosis, but even that amount wouldn't necessarily occasion a medical diagnosis of "alcoholism."

Where the "tall tale" comes in is with the increasing description of what was found after Frank's death. All Leonard says in his 1987 FHF remarks is "empty liquor bottles," nothing about "a great many" or "piles." Or still less that "[Frank's] studio was discovered to be filled with empty liquor bottles," as Nathaniel describes on pg. 330 MYWAR.

It's possible that Eloise said both (bottles each week and some after Frank died), that she said only each week, that she said only after his death. It's possible that she changed her story.

Agreed.

Why assume that Peikoff is more accurate in reporting what Eloise said instead of Weiss?

I don't assume that. But what neither of them reported tells you that Frank drank to excess.

I'd point out that Heller accepts the "each week" account. And Heller had access to: Weiss' interview, Eloise's statement(s) to Barbara, Peikoff's claim in 1987, and the Eloise interview in 100 Voices.

That's more information than you or I have.

Yeah. Agreed. And it doesn't counter the point. In fact, Heller's NOT providing anything more indicative of excessive amounts than she has provided leaves me thinking that she didn't find anything more indicative.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

I guess the body-snatchers have just about finished invading.

How ironic I find it to see *you* complaining of these details being discussed. I recall your previously expressing anger at all the smearing articles about Rand which have appeared in abundance following in the wake of the new books. Where do you think the smearers get the material they use? The biographical parts of it start with the Brandens, and Heller added a supposed "objective" second and extension. (The Burns book, though it has some negative stuff, I think is in a different category and wouldn't of itself have provided much fuel for the desire to consign Rand to the flames.)

All Ms. Stuttle has to do now is stick an "as well" at the end of occasional sentence, or throw in an occasional reference to "diminishing" or "wanking," and no one will be able to tell the difference between her posts and Jim Valliant's … or Lindsay Perigo's.

Robert Campbell

It's all part of the plan. They're going to rule the Western Word.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Skipping, since it's just three posts above, your summary of the sequence, which I think is accurate.

[....]

So where is the "tall tale"? The original version (as related by Weiss) is more dramatic. Bottles each week is evidence of excess drinking. Bottles after death isn't proof of much of anything.

Strong objection to your idea that "Bottles each week is evidence of excess drinking" (though agreed, and I'm glad to see you saying it, that "Bottles after death isn't proof of much of anything"). As I've pointed out to you in off-list discussion, and have said on-list, you would have to have quantities of what kind of bottles of what strength alcohol to have any evidence of excess drinking from "bottles each week." How many bottles? Of what?

If I drank beer in bottles instead of cans, there would be 10-12 bottles each week, plus a wine bottle about every two weeks, plus a dry-sherry bottle maybe once a month taken out in the trash from this place. This isn't remotely "evidence of excess drinking." Frank, who had a much larger body size then I have, could have consumed proportionately more alcohol without this being remotely "evidence of excess drinking." If it was seven fifths of hard alcohol each week, then you're talking serious trouble. A pint's worth of 80 proof (which would equal 6.4 ounces of straight alcohol) per day could at minimum make a person a good candidate for cirrhosis and would sure not be recommended for someone with arteriosclerosis, but even that amount wouldn't necessarily occasion a medical diagnosis of "alcoholism."

Where the "tall tale" comes in is with the increasing description of what was found after Frank's death. All Leonard says in his 1987 FHF remarks is "empty liquor bottles," nothing about "a great many" or "piles." Or still less that "[Frank's] studio was discovered to be filled with empty liquor bottles," as Nathaniel describes on pg. 330 MYWAR.

It's possible that Eloise said both (bottles each week and some after Frank died), that she said only each week, that she said only after his death. It's possible that she changed her story.

Agreed.

Why assume that Peikoff is more accurate in reporting what Eloise said instead of Weiss?

I don't assume that. But what neither of them reported tells you that Frank drank to excess.

I'd point out that Heller accepts the "each week" account. And Heller had access to: Weiss' interview, Eloise's statement(s) to Barbara, Peikoff's claim in 1987, and the Eloise interview in 100 Voices.

That's more information than you or I have.

Yeah. Agreed. And it doesn't counter the point. In fact, Heller's NOT providing anything more indicative of excessive amounts than she has provided leaves me thinking that she didn't find anything more indicative.

Ellen

If Frank had a studio he didn't paint in but went there anyway what did he do there? And what would be the harm of a few drinks to him over the course of a day--assuming. And if he went there to drink he may have been motivated at least partly by Ayn's ill health the last five years of his life.

--Brant

where are the paintings?

[Neil Parille]

Ellen,

I don't know why you are so hung up on the quantity issue.

Sure I don't know how much he drank and what proof. But if he spent his nights in his studio, not painting, and was observed in the morning with alcohol on his breath and tipsy I think we can conclude he had a drinking problem.

Are you saying Weiss and Kalberman were making stuff up? Please tell me how you analyze their interviews and whether you find them credible. Have you gotten around to emailing Dr. Blumenthal? What did Don Ventura tell you?

Please tell me the quantities Dean Martin consumed, or Winston Churchill. Do you know their BAC?

Even you said that based on his demeanor you concluded FO drank too much.

-Neil Parille

Edited January 22, 2010 by Neil Parille

[Brant Gaede]

GS,

1) Frank, like a true Randian hero, was happy that the woman he loved found someone else to love and value enough to have extramarital sex with -- and enough to risk the possibility of throwing away her marriage. Frank adored Ayn and was confident enough in his status as a real-life Frisco or Rearden that he wouldn't have felt threatened by the idea of his wife having sex with a man who was younger and much more intelligent and ambitious than he was.

Holy crap! Is this what "a true Randian hero" would do?

When Ayn Rand wanted him to.

Robert Campbell

In AS Hank slaps Francisco ("Is this the only woman you've ever loved?"). I always thought he and Galt at loggerheads over Dagny would have been a lot more interesting and explosive. Instead we get that ridiculous acceptance scene in Galt's Gulch. If I were Dagny in that situation not only would I be pissed off at Francisco who obviously ended up not loving me very much afterall or not having any balls to speak of unless he had someone better than me on the side, so to say, but I'd wonder what Galt really valued me at and for as he seemed to be part of the same game. The only thing making any psychological sense out of the whole arbitrary structure of the novel is Francisco and John being madly in love with each other and having a homosexual relationship. Note that in The Fountainhead the love of Roark and Wynand for each other is deeper and more palpable than Howard and Dominique. Roark losing Wynand in the end and getting Dominique back is, in psychological terms, a net loss. Wynand didn't have to fall on his sword except for plot reasons. And Peter Keating's feeble attempts to be a painter in what?--his late thirties--is real, but Frank's in his fifties were credible? I think both were credible but Peter gets flushed. If you want Ayn Rand psychology leave it in her novels, especially her two big ones.

--Brant

Edited January 22, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As I see it:

1. Barbara Weiss told Barbara in 1983 that Eloise told her that bottles were found "each week."

2. In 1986, Barbara publishes Passion claiming that bottles were found "each week."

3. In 1987, Peikoff claims that Eloise told him that bottles were found after Frank's death.

4. From 87 on, Barbara misremembers what Weiss told her after being asked about Peikoff's claim. (Looks like Walker made the same mistake in TARC.)

Neil,

My, my. You couldn't possibly mean that Barbara misremembered this issue instead of making an evil puppetmaster subliminal attack on the image of Ayn Rand to the collective unconscious?

If that were true, that she simply misremembered, that would be a clear indication that she did not consider the details of Frank's alcohol problem to be very important in the grand scheme of things. That she considered her love of Frank to have far more value.

Hell, that would switch the entire War of Frankian Sobriety around and make the "defenders" of Frank O'Connor his de facto smearers because, in their hatred of the Brandens, they made such a big deal about it that they were the ones who de facto branded Frank as an alcoholic beyond redemption.

They protested too much and too loudly (mixing paint in booze bottles and the whole litany) and the derision spread throughout the public. The popular version now is that Rand drove her husband to drink so much he went bonkers and the cultist loons deny it at all costs.

I wonder who created that percption, I wonder...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Generally speaking, being a drinker and needing a drink in the morning is strong evidence you have a drinking problem.

--Brant

[jriggenbach]

Generally speaking, being a drinker and needing a drink in the morning is strong evidence you have a drinking problem.

--Brant

In my book the only strong evidence that one has a "drinking problem" is that, when one raises one's glass to one's lips, one consistently hits one nose or eye or forehead or chin instead of one's lips.

JR

[Brant Gaede]

Generally speaking, being a drinker and needing a drink in the morning is strong evidence you have a drinking problem.

--Brant

In my book the only strong evidence that one has a "drinking problem" is that, when one raises one's glass to one's lips, one consistently hits one nose or eye or forehead or chin instead of one's lips.

JR

I like what Dean Martin said: If you can lie on the floor and not have to hold on you're not drunk.

In 1978 at the bottom of the Grand Canyon on a boat trip they served up red and white wine for us passengers. It started to rain and all the others ran for cover leaving me to drink of one then the other. I had to lay down and I had to hold on. In 1964 I had something of same experience at an end of the year college class party in Oak Creek Canyon just south of Flagstaff Arizona. Red and white, but not quite so drunk as to be unable to stick a guy with a knife who wanted to take me somewhere and rape me. The only two times in my life I drank both red and white.

--Brant

fuck with the best and die like the rest

Edited January 22, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Ellen Stuttle]

Brant,

How does Ellen know what Barbara Weiss' feeling were about Rand after she broke with her? Perhaps she was saddened about everything and not angry.

Glad you asked. To begin with, I don't claim to "know." But I think there's good textual evidence provided by none other than Anne Heller -- which evidence I shall proceed to re-supply.

The original of this post was titled "Barbara Weiss Witnesses." It appeared on the first page of posts on the "Anne Heller, M.D.?" SOLO thread.

So as lessen the clutter of nested quote blocks, I'll just copy/paste the original. I've added some further internal material, which is identified.

~=~=

Link: #82113, "Anne Heller, M.D.?" thread.

As I noted on the "'Goddess of the Market' by Jennifer Burns" thread (#81924), many of the most negative appraisals of Ayn Rand reported by Heller come from Barbara Weiss. I thought it would be interesting to excerpt the sections pertaining to Ayn's final years for which Barbara Weiss is a primary witness so as to bring out in clear relief the tone of Weiss' remarks.

Several things to notice in what follows:

1) Weiss stayed until after the Blumenthals, then Elayne Kalberman left. She's described here as having had a change of opinion about Ayn at that time. I have doubts about the story told. I wonder if Weiss would have decided to leave if the others hadn't done so, if missing the company of her friends of years, the Blumenthals and Elayne, with whom she'd been a co-worker on the publications, wasn't the strongest factor behind the revision of opinion.

2) Weiss is reported as coming to see "how repressed" Ayn was. I've always thought that the description of Ayn as repressed didn't ring true. Although I didn't know Ayn personally, I was many times in close enough physical proximity to her to have reached out and touched her. She didn't seem to me at all a repressed person; quite the contrary, she seemed to me a person with a free flow of access to what she felt.

3) In connection with Frank's drinking:

3a) Barbara Branden attributes to Elayne Kalberman the quote about Frank's warning not to eat the food, which Ayn might have poisoned; here it's attributed to Weiss. (Possibly both made a similar comment; however, the wording used is identical to that in BB's account.)

~~~ Edit: Correction and long cross-comparison.

I've subsequently realized that I'd just assumed, by a process of elimination, that Elayne was the source for the warning not to eat the food, since Barbara said in an OL post that she had taped reports from Weiss and Elayne. Thus I assumed that Weiss was the "member of the newsletter staff" Barbara refers to on pg. 384 and Elayne was the "friend."

Here's what Barbara writes in her book:

Passion, pg. 384

In the early mornings, before Ayn had risen, a member of the newsletter staff came to the apartment with mail or papers requiring her attention. Frank, weaving, incoherent, and smelling of alcohol, would answer the door; he had been drinking throughout the night while Ayn slept. And what had once been his irritability with Ayn, now was becoming a frightening hostility. One evening, in terror that he was about to harm her physically, she packed a suitcase and was prepared to leave the apartment, until at last he calmed down. And once, exploding in a rage, he did strike her, and she had to run, in heartbroken disbelief, to Frank's nurse for help.

Remembering those days with a shudder, a friend said, "All Frank's hostility seemed directed at Ayn, never at anyone else, and that hurt her terribly. When I came into the apartment, he was as sweet and kind as he had always been. Even at his worst, he would stand up when I entered, and hold the chair for me. Sometimes, he'd whisper in my ear, 'Don't eat anything. She's trying to poison me, and maybe she'll try to poison you, too.' I would say, 'Okay, Frank, I won't eat.' And I didn't.

"It may have been because she was always trying to force food on him that his reaction took this form. He was much too thin, but he couldn't eat, not when he was drinking all the time."

And here are descriptions Barbara gives in a couple posts and in a Full Context interview:

SOLOHQ, comments relayed by Brant, link

Both Elayne and Barbara Weiss told me, separately, stories of coming to the apartment mornings, on business, and finding Frank drunk in those last days just before his final illness.

OL, link

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.

Full Context, 1992 Interview, link

Branden: [The bottles-used-for-paint-mixing story is] ridiculous, of course. Toward the end, I'm sure Leonard had to know that Frank was drinking.

[Reedstrom]: How could you tell?

Branden It showed! I've heard from too many people that they came in to the apartment and the first thing they smelled was alcohol, and Frank clearly had been drinking. It might even be in the morning.

Some points to notice:

The "weaving, incoherent, and smelling of alcohol" in Barbara's description in Passion *isn't* provided as a quote from anyone. Nor does Heller cite anyone -- although she had access to Barbara's interview tapes -- as giving so dramatic a description. All Heller says about Frank's morning state is:

Heller, pg. 403

He drank at night, so that morning callers smelled liquor on his breath.

[she provides no footnote stating what "morning callers" are her source.]

As I said in a post on SOLO (#83541, "Anne Heller, M.D.?" thread) wherein I described my own nocturnal drinking habits, "Were someone to show up at my door (heaven forfend) at an early-morning hour, if I were still awake to answer the door, the someone might smell beer on my breath. " I'll spell out the implication: Were the someone to conclude that I have a "drinking problem," the someone would be wrong. This, of course, doesn't indicate that Frank *didn't* have a "drinking problem." But his drinking at night in his studio and having liquor smell on his breath in the morning doesn't classify as evidence of a "drinking problem."

~~~ End of insert

3b) The report from Eloise Huggins, Ayn's and Frank's housekeeper, about taking bottles from Frank's study each week is here reported as coming second-hand via Barbara Weiss, and the wording "rows of bottles," as in BB's report, isn't used. (Barbara doesn't specify where she got Eloise's report, whether direct from Eloise or second-hand.) Also, the additional information is provided, direct from Eloise as reported in 100 Voices, that Frank ordered beer and hard liquor from a package store. Beer is a low-alcohol-percentage drink. Multiple bottles of beer being removed each week is a different picture from multiple bottles of hard alcohol. We aren't told details of the removals, and of the percentages of beer versus hard alcohol ordered in and taken out.

3c) Heller once again -- as Michael Moeller pointed out in the topic post regarding the quote on pg. 357 -- states as fact, instead of saying that the evidence "suggests," that Frank "drank heavily." The wording is even stronger here, since she writes that "he drank heavily whenever he could."

4) Notice the description in the first paragraph: "Weiss had looked on as *dozens* [emphasis added] of hapless followers had endured interrogation and humiliation." Dozens?! That's quite a lot. I don't think "dozens" of "hapless followers" ever got close enough to the inner circle to qualify as candidates for whatever "interrogation and humiliation" occurred. (And recall, the only incident for which details are given is that of Daryn Kent in 1955, apparently the first of the reputedly long string which followed.)

[insert: And on what basis is Weiss said to have been privy to details of whatever "interrogation and humiliation" occurred. One thing Weiss would have known about is canceled subscriptions, and there might have been "dozens" of those. But Ayn didn't directly do the canceling. The publication staff did, on the basis of guidelines. Weiss herself might have been the agent who performed some of the cancellations.]

--

I've used boldface for all references to Barbara Weiss to assist with following the thread of her report. The source given in the footnotes for her remarks is a "[t]aped, unpublished interview with Barbara Weiss, conducted by BB, September 25, 1983."

I've used double curly brackets {{...}} to indicate my inserts in the text. Inserts in square brackets, except for the bracked ellipses, are in the original.

Ayn Rand and the World She Made

Doubleday, 2009

pp. 402-405

Barbara Weiss resigned. Over the course of fifteen years, Weiss had looked on as dozens of hapless followers had endured interrogation and humiliation. At first, she had attributed her employer's anger to a blind, passionate, highly charged moral temperament. Later, "I saw how repressed she was, and I knew [her anger] had to come from fear," Weiss said, echoing an observation made two decades earlier by Random House copy editor Bertha Krantz. "I decided she was possibly the most feaful person I had ever met." After the Blumenthals' departure, Weiss decided that Rand was not, after all, unconscious of the turbulence and pain she had caused in the lives of people who had cared for her, including Frank. "She just robbed him of everything," the secretary {{Weiss}} said. "I [came to] look on her as a killer of people."

Thus Peikoff became the sole heir to her copyrights, manuscripts, and savings and, except for Eloise Huggins, often her sole companion. {{Unflattering remarks about Peikoff skipped}} While she lived, he was the only acolyte who remained close to her, and--whether she knew it or not--he had to further stifle his spirit. "Leonard was destroyed," said an acquaintance {{i.e., Barbara Weiss}}. "He was a robot at the end."

[insert: As much as people here tend to dislike Peikoff, do you think that description is fair?]

[....]

[....] After the loss of Nathaniel, she had turned back to {{Frank}}--to the warm, patient, often witty man who, if he had never satisfied her yearning for an idea-driven, sexually dominating partner, had never been disloyal to her. But she was too late. Even then, he was failing. {{Frank was hospitalized after collapsing on a day in the early '70s, possibly from a mild heart attack caused by arteriosclerosis.}} He grew increasingly fragile, vacant, hard to reach. Rand was terrified of losing him, and for the rest of his life she--anxiously, even intrusively--monitored his exercise and eating.

But she did not acknowledge his mental deterioration, just as she had never really acknowledged the fact of his separate mental life. When conversation was still within his power, he had sometimes told Eloise, the housekeeper, or one of Rand's secretaries how much he missed the open spaces and greenery of the San Fernando Valley. "But he hated California," Rand reportedly would say, "He loves New York." She nagged at him continually, to onlookers' distress. "Don't humor him," she told Barbara Weiss, before the woman resigned. 'Make him try to remember." She insisted that his mental lapses were "psycho-epistemological," and she gave him long, grueling lessons in how to think and remember. She assigned him papers on aspects of his mental functioning, which he was entirely unable to write. At one point she asked his niece Mimi Sutton, now widowed and living in Chicago, to come to New York to help care for him, but Mimi sensed that her uncle and aunt were in a state of conflict and said no. For months and years Rand went on goading him, out of fear, horror, or, perhaps, a cultivated prejudice that what is not rational is not quite human. "He never got kindness from her," said Weiss.

[insert: That comment is outrageous.]

Perhaps it's not surprising that he drank heavily whenever he could. He apparently ordered beer or hard liquor from neighborhood stores and took delivery in his studio, where he still spent many afternoons, or when she was out of the apartment. 'If Ayn happened to open the door, she'd send it back," said a regular visitor during those years. {{Elayne Kalberman}} "Once he asked her about it. 'Are you trying to take this away from me, too?'" he said. He drank at night, so that morning callers smelled liquor on his breath. Eloise Huggins later disclosed to a confidante {{i.e., Barbara Weiss}} that every week she removed empty bottles from the studio. After the death of both O'Connors, Peikoff took stock of the neglected studio, found old liquor bottles, and told friends that Frank had used them for mixing paints, although he had not been able to paint in many years.

[....]

Her impossible expectations of him arose partly from her need. With this exceptionally handsome, affable, and apparently doting man by her side, she was not an aberration or an idol but a woman who belonged on earth. One year, when Frank wasn't strong enough to accompany her to Boston for her annual Ford Hall Forum speech, she shook with anxiety during the four-hour drive in a hired car. She was frightened but she didn't call it that. "She said, 'I am very nervous. I am worried about him,'" said an employee {{i.e., Barbara Weiss}} who escorted her to Boston. "But she wasn't worried about him. She [gave her speech and] got an ovation, and her worry about Frank disappeared." Having known Rand and O'Connor for many years, this acquaintance {{Weiss}} said, "I knew she didn't love him. But he was something in her life that was really crucial. She needed him by her side to make her a person, a woman, something. She said she'd never travel without him again."

[insert: Do any of you think it's true that Ayn didn't love Frank?]

In the late 1970s, Frank's condition worsened. He became house-bound and didn't always recognize familiar faces. In an attempt to anchor his mind to the present, she gave him household chores to do, such as feeding the cats, and became agitated when he forgot to do them. He refused to eat, and she tried to force him, in spite of the fact that he appeared to be "frightened, terribly frightened," Peikoff's first wife, Susan Ludel, recalled. "Don't eat the food," he whispered to Barbara Weiss. "She's trying to poison me. She might try to poison you." Sometimes she was cruel. When he became incontinent, she referred to his diapers in the presence of a friend. {{no footnote identifying who}} One day, she confided to the same {{unidentified}} friend that he had tried to hit her. ("I was sorry he missed," said the friend. {{how sweet, coming from a "friend" !!!}}) Yet he still rose to his feet when a woman entered the room. Out of loneliness, devotion, depression, or the fear that she was running out of time with the man she had most deeply loved and deeply betrayed, she slept beside him on rubber sheets. {{source, Barbara Weiss}} Eventually, friends persuaded her to buy a hospital bed. During his final days and nights, she sat by his side, held his hands, and wept.

[insert: Any bets *who* the "friend" was who was sorry Frank missed? I bet, Barbara Weiss, although maybe it was the nurse whom Barbara says on pg 384, Passion, Ayn ran to. ("One evening, in terror that he was about to harm her physically, she packed a suitcase and was prepared to leave the apartment, until at last he calmed down. And once, exploding in a rage, he did strike her, and she had to run, in heartbroken disbelief, to Frank's nurse for help.") But would the nurse have been described by Heller as a "friend"? Also, notice, Heller's account has the attempting blow missing.]

Frank O'Connor died on November 7, 1979. [....] {{Barbara Branden gives the date as November 9; I'm not sure which is correct, though I remember that it was that week.}}

===

[below are all the footnotes provided.]

400 She viewed his rebellion: OHP, Robert Hessen, November 10, 2004.

400 On the advice of her secretary: Taped, unpublished interview with Barbara Weiss, conducted by BB, September 25, 1983.

400 "Leonard was destroyed": Taped, unpublished interview with Barbara Weiss, conducted by BB, September 25, 1983.

402 One evening in the early 1970s: TPOAR, p. 366.

402 Those who met him afterward: Author interview with Martha and John Enright, July 6, 2006.

402 "But he <i>hated</i> California": TPOAR, p. 384

403 "Don't humor him": Taped, unpublished interview with Barbara Weiss, conducted by BB, September 25, 1983.

403 She assigned him papers: TPOAR, p. 365.

403 At one point she asked: Taped, unpublished interview with MS [Mimi Sutton], conducted by BB, February 20, 1983.

403 "He never got kindness from her": Taped, unpublished interview with Barbara Weiss, conducted by BB, September 25, 1983.

403 He apparently ordered beer: <i>100 Voices</i>, Eloise Huggins, p. 440.

403 "If Ayn happened to open the door": Author interview with Florence Hirschfeld, Jonathan Hirschfeld, and EK [Elayne Kalberman], August 25, 2006.

403 Eloise Huggins later disclosed to a confidante: Taped, unpublished interview with Barbara Weiss, conducted by BB, September 25, 1983.

403 "she [always] talk[ed] about": <i>100 Voices</i>, Eloise Huggins, p. 439.

404 "I [have] had Frank": Letter to Gerald Loeb, August 5, 1944 (<i>LOAR</i>, p. 154).

404 One year, when Frank wasn't strong enough: Taped, unpublished interview with Barbara Weiss, conducted by BB, September 25, 1983.

404 "frightened, terribly frightened": <i>100 Voices</i>, Susan Ludel, p. 530.

404 "Don't eat the food": Taped, unpublished interview with Barbara Weiss, conducted by BB, September 25, 1983.

405 she slept beside him on rubber sheets: Taped, unpublished interview with Barbara Weiss, conducted by BB, September 25, 1983.

===

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

I don't know why you are so hung up on the quantity issue.

I can only classify that comment as amazingly silly. Here we have a person said variously to have been an "alcoholic," to have drank "heavily," or excessively, and you don't understand why the amount he drank is important to know?

Sure I don't know how much he drank and what proof. But if he spent his nights in his studio, not painting, and was observed in the morning with alcohol on his breath and tipsy I think we can conclude he had a drinking problem.

I do not think "we" can conclude any such thing from that information. Furthermore, as you'll see if you actually read in detail the post above, the "tipsy" is questionable.

Are you saying Weiss and Kalberman were making stuff up? Please tell me how you analyze their interviews and whether you find them credible.

There are some evaluative statements Weiss made which I think she's certainly wrong about, and I doubt the accuracy of her report that he couldn't eat because of drinking. That's the only statement either is reported making which would demonstrate "a drinking problem," if it's true. See the long post above.

Have you gotten around to emailing Dr. Blumenthal? What did Don Ventura tell you?

Neil, I have told you that I am not planning to intrude on Allan Blumenthal's life with questions about Frank's drinking after not having been in touch with Allan for nearly thirty years. I mean that I am not writing to Allan.

I haven't seen any point in attempting to query Ventura, since several other people have attempted (haven't you written to him yourself?) and none has received in response so much as an "I don't wish to discuss it." I have no reason to think he'd answer me when he isn't answering others.

Please tell me the quantities Dean Martin consumed, or Winston Churchill. Do you know their BAC?

I haven't the least idea, or if either had "a drinking problem."

Even you said that based on his demeanor you concluded FO drank too much.

Whoa. I have corrected that statement. I thought when I first met Frank at Allan's recital in 1970 that his vacantness might be alcoholic senility. Talking with Marcia Enright about it years later (after the subject of Frank's drinking came up on OL), I realized that it might not have been alcohol-related. It might have been after effect of the collapse because of which he was hospitalized in 1970 (I don't know what month), probable diagnosis a mild heart attack, or simply because of the advance of arteriosclerosis.

I never heard anyone who knew the O'Connors well say anything about Frank drinking. Maybe *all* of them were just keeping it secret, but considering that a few of them were prone to talking, I would think there'd have been a mention from someone among them which I'd have heard of if Frank's drinking were nearly as apparent to persons who visited the apartment regularly as Barbara indicates it was in the Full Context interview.

Ellen

[Selene]

Generally speaking, being a drinker and needing a drink in the morning is strong evidence you have a drinking problem.

--Brant

In my book the only strong evidence that one has a "drinking problem" is that, when one raises one's glass to one's lips, one consistently hits one nose or eye or forehead or chin instead of one's lips.

JR

I like what Dean Martin said: If you can lie on the floor and not have to hold on you're not drunk.

In 1978 at the bottom of the Grand Canyon on a boat trip they served up red and white wine for us passengers. It started to rain and all the others ran for cover leaving me to drink of one then the other. I had to lay down and I had to hold on. In 1964 I had something of same experience at an end of the year college class party in Oak Creek Canyon just south of Flagstaff Arizona. Red and white, but not quite so drunk as to be unable to stick a guy with a knife who wanted to take me somewhere and rape me. The only two times in my life I drank both red and white.

--Brant

fuck with the best and die like the rest

Brant:

C'mon a smart guy like you! Surely you realize that the red and white had nothing to do with it because it was obviously the canyon is the common problem. Start drinking at sea level or higher.

Adam

using a combination of Peikovian and Ms. Xray paradigms of logic

[Jerry Biggers]

First, a quick note to Jerry Biggers. (I underlined so the reply might have a better chance of being noticed sandwiched before further posts, one of them very long, to follow.)

How ironic I find it to see *you* complaining of these details being discussed. I recall your previously expressing anger at all the smearing articles about Rand which have appeared in abundance following in the wake of the new books. Where do you think the smearers get the material they use? The biographical parts of it start with the Brandens, and Heller added a supposed "objective" second and extension. (The Burns book, though it has some negative stuff, I think is in a different category and wouldn't of itself have provided much fuel for the desire to consign Rand to the flames.)

Ellen

To Ellen Stuttle (name underlined so my reply might have a better chance of being noticed sandwiched between other discussions of this apparently crucial issue). I see that my advice on this issue is being ignored, so I will just gingerly step back out of the line of fire regarding this burning question.

But you find my comments to be "ironic" because I had previously expressed anger (actually, it was disgust and dismay) at all the smearing articles about Rand following the release of the Burns and Heller books, adding, "Where do you think the smearers get the material that they use?" From the gutter, mostly. Wherein, they found Jeff Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult, which is a handy compendium listing most of the smears that can be found in these articles. Another source is the infamous 1957 review of Atlas Shrugged by Whittaker Chambers in National Review (which is also used by Jeff Walker in his book).

No, they didn't get most (if any) content for their attacks from Burns and Heller. Some of the articles do not even mention or quote any passages from these books (see for example, Jonathan Chait's article in that bastion of journalistic integrity, The New Republic). And when they do use quotes, they conveniently leave out any of the complimentary passages about Rand that are also in the Burns and the Heller books.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Generally speaking, being a drinker and needing a drink in the morning is strong evidence you have a drinking problem.

--Brant

No one whose testimony has been provided said anything about Frank's "needing a drink in the morning." What's been described is his drinking in his studio at night, thus having an alcohol smell on his breath in the morning.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Generally speaking, being a drinker and needing a drink in the morning is strong evidence you have a drinking problem.

--Brant

No one whose testimony has been provided said anything about Frank's "needing a drink in the morning." What's been described is his drinking in his studio at night, thus having an alcohol smell on his breath in the morning.

Ellen

If that then. If not that then not. WTF was he supposed to be doing in his "studio" at night? I never smelled alcohol on my Father's breath the morning after. Nor on my brother-in-law's. I regret to say I'm not out of my depth on this one. I do admit to a weak sense of smell, but I do sometimes smell things. Do you have any idea how close you have to get to someone to smell alcohol on their breath unless they've just tossed a few?

--Brant

where are the paintings?

[Brant Gaede]

Drinking early in the morning might have been the best way to hide one's drinking from a late-sleeping wife.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

[Reply to my query] "Where do you think the smearers get the material that they use?" From the gutter, mostly. Wherein, they found Jeff Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult, which is a handy compendium listing most of the smears that can be found in these articles. Another source is the infamous 1957 review of Atlas Shrugged by Whittaker Chambers in National Review (which is also used by Jeff Walker in his book).

That's very funny.

You might want to try this exercise. Google, exactly as written:

"Ayn Rand" "a killer of people"

And:

Rand bitch

Many blogs picking up articles featuring these descriptions. Notice where the articles get the descriptions.

(Repeating, I didn't say the Burns was a major source of the negative material.)

--

A general point I'll mention. I would think that people who care about Ayn Rand, and maybe about her husband derivatively, might be glad to have reason to doubt that Frank was such a drunk and so miserable as they've been told. Instead, the strong attempt here is to continue believing the worst.

Ellen

PS: Brant, I do not doubt that he drank in his studio. I think you really don't pay attention to details, possibly don't even read them.

Why? and How much? are the questions.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle