Ayn Rand and the World She Made

[Neil Parille]

Ellen,

1. My point about the quantity is that we are not in a position to know with respect to Frank or most other people who are suspected of having drinking problems. If this were a court case then it would be necessary.

2. I'm not suggesting you contact Don Ventura or AB or anyone else. My point is that three biographers have concluded Frank drank too much. They have interviewed (or read interviews) of these people. Heller and Burns knew full well that there was a controversy about this issue.

-Neil Parille

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

1. My point about the quantity is that we are not in a position to know with respect to Frank or most other people who are suspected of having drinking problems. If this were a court case then it would be necessary.

No, we aren't in a position to know, but we are in a position strongly to question, at least in the case of Frank O'Connor -- and the issue is major as to whether or not there's a basis for concluding that Frank O'Connor was a drunk, driven to drink by supposedly cruel Ayn Rand's "shocking insensitivity" toward him in regard to the NB/AR affair (pg. 273, Passion). There just is not the evidence for conclusions which have been drawn.

2. I'm not suggesting you contact Don Ventura or AB or anyone else. My point is that three biographers have concluded Frank drank too much. They have interviewed (or read interviews) of these people. Heller and Burns knew full well that there was a controversy about this issue.

And both were tentative (Burns more than Heller, who forgot her tentativeness as she progressed), as you know full well. Barbara is the only one who made positive assertions, which she does not provide sufficient evidence for believing, as I think anyone who's been following the subject should know by now.

Please answer the question as to whether you wrote to Ventura. If yes, did you receive any reply? None of those who explicitly told me they wrote to him did.

Ellen

PS: I might not have time for any further posts till mid-week next week.

[Neil Parille]

Ellen,

I wrote to Ventura and he did not respond.

-Neil Parille

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I do quote from SLOP:

Meanwhile, I've been bogged down with issues of "was Frank a drunk?" on OL...

Bogged down?

All that yapping is being "bogged down"?

Did Stuttle suddenly appear here on OL on a sacred mission against the Infidels in the War of Frankian Sobriety?

The issue, properly speaking and judging from the account of the Blumenthals, is not "was Frank a drunk?", but at what times in his life "was Frank a drunk"? (That's Stuttle's way of stating it. I would not phrase it that way.)

Maybe it's time for Stuttle to mount her trusty steed and make a Valliant charge against the Blumenthals if she wants the issue to be "was" instead of "when"...

She's starting to get just as good as Valliant at ignoring and/or pretzel-twisting "evidence" that does not fit her preordained conclusion.

Please note, "was Frank a drunk?" is Stuttle's way of putting it, not the "drank heavily" way the Blumenthals are reported by Anne Heller.

One more indication that the alleged "defenders" of Frank are his worse smearers in terms of public perception.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Speaking of Anne, here is her latest blog post:

Yes, there were a few anecdotes and observations that I omitted for legal reasons, and, given another chance, sections where I would add historical material for better context. I don’t think there is any frame-changing material left out there. But–boy–do I wish I had had access to the Ayn Rand Papers, particularly unpublished letters and diaries.

She couldn't mean that she doesn't take the ARI and PARC version of Rand's unpublished letters and diaries as scholarly, now could she?

I mean, after all, they ask people to take them on faith. Now how cool is that?

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

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.

In other words, Ms. Stuttle has concluded that there are two likely outcomes to contacting Allan Blumenthal or Don Ventura:

• They won't talk to her

• They will talk to her, and she won't like what they have to say.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

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

Notice that Ms. Stuttle has not said that she personally cares about Ayn Rand.

Could it be that she has simply identified another constituency susceptible to manipulative pleading?

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Ellen,

1. I have not contacted Dr. Blumenthal because I assume that, at this point in his (and Joan's) life, he has spoken his peace on Ayn Rand and Frank O'Connor.

2. I have never said Frank was a "drunk." I believe that at points in his life he drank to excess.

3. My assumption is that the two new biographers, knowing full well the controversy over this and other matters, would not side with Barbara (at least in the outline of her claim) as against Valliant absent solid evidence.

4. Have you asked Jim Valliant if he has done any archival research on this or other matters since PARC? He likes to imply that he is "tight" with Peikoff and the archives. Have you contacted Milgram or the archives?

-Neil

[BaalChatzaf]

Can I ask a dumb question? What does the late Mr. Oconnor's drinking habits have to do with the quality of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Please forgive my slow wits.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

Can I ask a dumb question? What does the late Mr. Oconnor's drinking habits have to do with the quality of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Please forgive my slow wits.

On 9 January you asked the same question (only you called it a 'silly question' the first time). This was my answer then.

[Xray]

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]

The reason why certain Objectvists get so upset at the mere thought of Frank possibly having a drinking problem is that it doesn't mesh with the preferred public image A. Rand presented to her devotees, both of herself and of her husband.

Stuttle & Co know very well that few things are more detrimental to an ideology than a tarnished guru - hence the attacks.

So the real motive is fear of a truth perceived as threatening. Fear of truth often leads to attacking the messenger; in this case B. Branden who spoke up about it in her book.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What does the late Mr. Oconnor's drinking habits have to do with the quality of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

A lot. For Rand liked to give a glorified image of herself, her husband and the Brandens as living examples of the cardinal Objectvist 'values and virtues'. But an unhappy spouse of the guru seeking oblivion in drink from this 'Objectivist reality' disturbs the whole picture to the point that some may even start to question the premises of the philosophy. The same goes for the sexual affair she kept secret. She stressed the importance of not "faking reality", but did precisely just that. This exposed her as just another guru caught in not practising what they preach.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Xray

[Jerry Biggers]

[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.

Ellen,

You care about Ayn Rand? And Frank?

You have said, elsewhere and perhaps on this site, "I am not an Objectivist." So obviously you disagree with some or all of Rand's philosophy. Since that is the case, then why your obsessive interest in "rescuing" their reputation (As if Rand needed to be saved. It rests on on the contents of her books.) with this focus on the irrelevant?

Do you think that the case that her detractors have concocted against her will be materially affected by this pseudo-controversy? It will not. What they are primarily interested in, is destroying her philosophy, and if they can't do it through an objective critical examination of its principles, then using ad hominem attacks on her character is just fine with them.

You requested that I do a Google search on "Ayn Rand" and "a killer of people," simultaneously. And of 'Rand' and 'bitch.' I find it curious that you choose those particular words, in those combinations. When I have previously set-up Google Alerts, I did not choose that particular combination, which will most likely concentrate on dredging up the worst. I guess you were looking for the same type of material that is found in Jeff Walker's book. He simply beat them to it.

I said in my previous post that the smear merchants get their material from the gutter. Whether it was found in Walker's book, or Chambers, or Google searches, or from embittered former associates such as Barbara Weiss, makes no difference. Their goal is character assassination.

You seem to have a talent for drawing people in to convoluted debate with you over inconsequential issues. You have tried this with Anne Heller, but she will no longer take your bait. Neither will I.

[tjohnson]

Can I ask a dumb question? What does the late Mr. Oconnor's drinking habits have to do with the quality of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Please forgive my slow wits.

On 9 January you asked the same question (only you called it a 'silly question' the first time). This was my answer then.

LOL!

[Daniel Barnes]

I remember my late Grandmother used to get me to buy her a bottle of sherry once a week or so, which I'd drop round to her home. Being a good grandson, I used to do it for years. Nothing wrong with that, a nice old lady enjoying a tipple now and again. She used to seem a bit dotty - once she invited my sister and I round for lunch, and she'd cut herself quite badly and bled all over the food, which she didn't seem to notice and expected us to eat as normal. It was odd, but we put it down to advancing age and poor eyesight.

Then I was at a barbecue with some relatives, who I didn't see that much of, and we started talking about Helen. I mentioned my semi-weekly visits. Then my cousin interjected and said "But that's what I do to..." and my other cousin "And me..." and my aunt "Gosh, me too..." etc. We realised she getting deliveries daily, from us as well as friends, and had been for years. Even after we stopped the delivery system, when we moved her out into a rest home we found empty bottles stashed literally everywhere (she kept a tidy house on the surface).

I say this simply because it's actually pretty easy for people to have a serious drinking problem and for no-one, not even the people who regularly see them, to really know. Particularly when they're older, and your natural assumption is the effects of age. Drunks are also pretty clever.

So I seriously doubt there is any evidence that's going emerge that's going to be decisive. So I suggest we step back and look at the two larger narratives in play that Frank's drinking or lack thereof is supposed to fit into.

In terms of this particular case, ie Frank's taking to drink as a reaction to his wife electing to regularly sleep with a younger man at their home, it seems to follow a pretty reasonable narrative. I've known a few alcoholics, including some pretty high-functioning ones. It's often a shock to discover what's really going on behind this seemingly-together person's life - friends often can't quite believe it. It's also quite a continuum of behaviour, which makes it even trickier to pinpoint. And yes, it does often stem from some kind of dysfunctional marital relationship. (This is not to say that Ayn and Frank didn't deeply relate to each other at some level - people with problematic relationships often do). This is basically the theory put forward by the Branden, Burns, and Heller bios AFAICS.

As a counter to this familiar human story, so far all I've seen is the theory expressed in Valliant's book, which is a kind of Randian Exceptionalism. That is, because Ayn and Frank were "giants" in an ethical sense, and subscribed to a unique and unconventional "science" of ethics, they were able to pull off a long-running triangular sexual affair without the usual collateral damage that results among ordinary people. In fact mere lack of damage is not enough; the Objectivist theory of sex implies that this three-way has to be the "highest value", even for the cuckolded one. And of course Objectivism states that there can be no conflicts between such exceptionally rational beings as Ayn and Frank. From these principles, a passing comment of Rand's, plus some notes on the three-way preferences of her fictional characters, Valliant concludes that far from being hurt and driven to drink by the affair, Frank happily derived both sexual and spiritual gratification from his wife having frequent sex with another, younger, man. Hence, no need to hit the bottle etc.

I am not aware of a explicit third narrative out there.

The upshot of the debate over Frank's drinking seems to be we are being asked to choose between the two storylines. It seems to me that as the second narrative is far more speculative than the first and relies almost entirely on the assumption of exceptionalism. Thus it requires exceptional evidence in its favour, not simply a critique of the evidence of the first, which, as I suggest, will never be fully conclusive either way.

Both stories also imply ethical judgements about Rand, and to a lesser but still important extent, Frank. Hence they are of wider interest, as obviously Objectivism makes a big deal about its ethics, so we want to see how they play out in reality. Ethics is an area where ad hominems actually apply...;-)

It also seems to me that the second narrative has had nothing remotely like the levels of critical examination leveled at the first one. In fact, no one seemingly even wants to mention it. Yet it is by far the most radical, and also the most evidence-free hypothesis of the two.

Perhaps that emphasis needs to change.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Daniel Barnes

[tjohnson]

Hey, open marriages were around long before objectivism, especially in the aristocracy. Usually it was the other way around - the man taking a mistress so I agree it would take an exceptional person to not be hurt by having your wife take a lover. Women traditionally have not had as many options as men, hell they could be beheaded by Henry VIII

Edited January 22, 2010 by general semanticist

[Robert Campbell]

Daniel,

Your summation of the two narratives is spot-on.

I have never heard anything about Frank O'Connor and his drinking habits that would constitute a third narrative.

And the Perigonians and the Ortho-Objectivists, with the exception of Jim Valliant in his book, have never seriously defended "Ayn and Frank were giants" (aka Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi).

If anything, the Orthos are still sort of trying to keep up with "Ayn was a giant," but they can't muster a whole lot of enthusiasm for "Frank was a giant."

Robert Campbell

[jeffrey smith]

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.

--Brant

Shipping Atlas Shrugged! Must get off the floor when I stop laughing.

Jeffrey S.

[Xray]

Brant,

The computer by itself only confuses my problems more. It takes a lot of discipline to make it solve a problem.

Speaking of computer flaws, the glitches in the software limiting me to five posts a day are still there.

It looks like the software program can't even count to five, for when I get the verbatim message "You can make five more posts today", after making the first post of the new cycle and editing it, I get the message that there's only three left (instead of four). It looks like it counts editing as posting too.

So there's definitely a software problem. It appears that the count is not on number of posts, but on number of access times.

A properly working software would time-stamp my posts along with post identity by post number.

The recognition then would be a count by reference to post numbers instead of number of access times which wrongly reads an edit as a post.

If the software were working working properly, whenever the same post number comes up, it would not not trigger the counter.

Did the software makers neglect to write an adequate program for the operation?

General Semanticist: Hey, open marriages were around long before objectivism, especially in the aristocracy.

Imo Rand trying to do everything to keep her affair with NB from the public eye contradicts the idea of this being a so-called 'open marriage'.

Question to the Objectivists: can you imagine what would have happened if Frank had claimed his share of that Randian Objectivist value cake?

Suppose Frank had come to the conclusion "Okay, what is good for the goose is good for the gander", and told his wife that he had fallen in love with another woman who happened to share his "highest values" (for Rand justifed her sexual affair with the argument that both she and N. Branden shared the same "high values"). - Imo Rand would have flown off the handle.

Agree? If yes, why?

Disagree? If yes, why?

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, you wrote:

Brant Gaede: JR is always leaving Internet forums. Sometimes he comes back.

Indeed, Jeff Riggenbach has returned to OL despite having announced his "Farewell to Posts" here.

As evidenced by his Oct 31 post:

Jeffrey Riggenbach:

I guess the living room is as good a place as any to take my leave of you all, right?

Probably not. Probably Phil will identify my true motive in doing so as the desire to "humiliate" somebody or other. Probably "Xray" will identify my true motive as the desire to "attack" somebody or other - or perhaps she'll identify it as my desire to flee from her "arguments," lest they make me check my premises. Always remember, boys and girls, if Phil or "Xray" speculates on my motives, that's fine and dandy. If I speculate on theirs, it's because I'm mean and evil.

So long!

JR

Makes me think of the German chancellor who said "Was kümmert mich mein Geschwätz von gestern?" translated as: 'I don't care one bit about my prattle of yesterday'.

So there's a hearty welcome back to JR on my part - for I hope to continue where he left abruptly.

But to modify a saying - let us not count JR's posts before they are (hatched and) written. ;)

JR: 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.

Nice try JR to use 'word by word' interpretation with the purpose of 'diluting' (pun intended) the issue.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Heh.

One day M. Xray will learn how the program works. Until then, she will keep saying it doesn't.

I used to believe it was a lost cause, but I believe one day she will actually get it. For no other reason than she keeps trying to make the reality of it fit with the fantasy of it in her head.

All that effort has to pay off some day.

So I try to practice the virtue of patience.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Daniel,

Your Grandmother and I have a lot in common...

It's in my past now, but I used to do that kind of stuff.

And nobody knew.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Xray, ask Michael if you can get "rollover" posts.

If you can't, take your business to a forum where you can: The AT&T Objectivist

Or: just post once a day--problem solved!

--Brant

better than figuring it out

[Alfonso Jones]

Heh.

One day M. Xray will learn how the program works. Until then, she will keep saying it doesn't.

I used to believe it was a lost cause, but I believe one day she will actually get it. For no other reason than she keeps trying to make the reality of it fit with the fantasy of it in her head.

All that effort has to pay off some day.

So I try to practice the virtue of patience.

Michael

Michael -

Clearly something in the combination of program and Xray is failing, consistently. I think it's pretty obvious to most of us that it's not the software.

Regards,

Bill P

[Ellen Stuttle]

I want to make some further comments responding to Jerry Biggers, although Jerry has declared his intention not to respond further to me.

In answer to my question "Where do you think the smearers get the material they use?," Jerry replied:

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.

In the biographical section of Jonathan Chait's article "Wealthcare" (section II of the article, link), all of the material is gotten directly from Burns and Heller, more from Heller than from Burns. Some direct quotes are given, including several of passages by Rand which were quoted in the bios.

Chait's account negatively skews what it reports, but where it gets the material isn't "the gutter." (I'm not blaming the bios for skewed reporting of their contents, merely correcting Jerry's statements.)

One claim in the Chait piece was edited after publication, I think because of a comment by me which I posted on both the Wilkinson and Doherty blog entries about "Wealthcare."

Chait originally wrote: "Rand spent her first months in this country subsisting on loans from relatives in Chicago, which she promised to repay lavishly when she struck it rich. (She reneged, never speaking to her Chicago family again.)"

I documented the inaccuracies, using material from Barbara's biography. The next day after my duplicate posts appeared, Chait edited to the neutral statement: "Rand found relatives to support her temporarily in Chicago, before making her way to Hollywood."

Chait's description of Rand as having "abysmal personal hygiene" is something about which I asked, where had he gotten that? It was a new negative description I'd never seen before. I subsequently learned that he'd gotten it from Heller (although she didn't use the extreme adjective "abysmal").

You requested that I do a Google search on "Ayn Rand" and "a killer of people," simultaneously. And of 'Rand' and 'bitch.' I find it curious that you choose those particular words, in those combinations. When I have previously set-up Google alerts, I did not choose that particular combination, which will most likely concentrate on dredging up the worst. I guess you were looking for the same type of material that is found in Jeff Walker's book. He simply beat them to it.

I said in my previous post that the smear merchants get their material from the gutter. Whether it was found in Walker's book, or Chambers, or Google searches, or from embittered former associates such as Barbara Weiss, makes no difference. Their goal is character assassination.

I chose those words in those combinations because the searches (I currently get 6,490 links for the first combination and 698,000 for the second) bring up articles and blog posts which abundantly base their commentary on the new bios, especially the Heller.

(One of the links on the first search is to Neil Parille's Amazon review of the Heller in which he features Barbara Weiss' description of Rand as "a killer of people."

link

To me the most telling account was that of Rand's secretary Barbara Weiss. Rand, she said, was the most repressed fearful person she had ever met. At the same time Weiss decided to leave after fifteen years of devoted service concluding that Rand did in fact know the harm she was causing other people, including her husband. She was a "killer of people" Weiss said.

)

If material "from embittered former associates such as Barbara Weiss" is "material from the gutter," well... Who provided the material, and didn't express any disagreement with Weiss' evaluation?

Do you think that the case that her detractors have concocted against her will be materially affected by this pseudo-controversy?

I think that those who are out to tear Rand down will continue their efforts no matter what. But there are those who love Rand and might welcome some counters to various claims made about her. Obviously, I don't agree re the "pseudo-controversy."

You care about Ayn Rand? And Frank?

Yes. I loved Ayn Rand. I liked Frank quite a bit. And I've been fascinated by Ayn Rand as a person ever since I first read Atlas Shrugged in June 1961, when I was eighteen and a half.

One needn't be in complete agreement with Objectivism to love Ayn Rand. (My primary disagreements with her pertain to psychological issues, most especially her theory of voilition, which I think isn't properly grounded biologically. I'm working on a book, which I hope I'll live long enough to finish, attempting to remedy the problem.)

Regarding my questioning of Heller on the Doubleday site, I was making no attempt to debate with her, just to get some straight answers to questions. The attempt failed -- why she couldn't just say yes or no as to whether she got the Dupuytren's diagnosis from Allan, likewise as to whether or not the Blumenthals asked that what they said about Frank to be withheld, etc., I don't know. She did end up being somewhat informative nonetheless.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

I have never heard anything about Frank O'Connor and his drinking habits that would constitute a third narrative.

He began whiling away time drinking in his studio when he became old, was growing senile, and could no longer paint.

Basically the story Barbara changed to in rescinding her claim in Passion that Frank began drinking "as a way of life" in 1955. She tells it as if he drank a lot more in his last decade than I think is likely, but that's basically the story she ended up telling.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

4. Have you asked Jim Valliant if he has done any archival research on this or other matters since PARC? He likes to imply that he is "tight" with Peikoff and the archives. Have you contacted Milgram or the archives?

No to all. The only correspondence I've had with Jim Valliant was last summer over the Wikipedia business. (Side note to Brant: Holly did most of the Wikipedia editing, and he was extremely ill, in the hospital several times.)

Ellen