Ayn Rand Smeared Again

To the empty booze bottles = alcoholic crowd:

When I was a kid I went on a jag in shop class of making lamps out of booze bottles. My dad was a beer drinker (who by the way collected beer cans from around the world - hmm, must've been an alcoholic), so we didn't have empty booze bottles around the house for me to use. So my dad got them from friends and family. I remember he got one bottle of Jack Daniels from a neighbor that was still about a quarter full. I liked the bottle, so I poured what was left down the drain.

Today I don't make lamps anymore, but I have a cabinet full of booze. Probably three dozen of them ranging from wine to whiskey to ouzo. I'm always out of rum for some reason. The only drink I had in the past few months was the weekend before last. So why do I have so much liquor around and why does it keep disappearing? Maybe because like a lot of people, I entertain family and friends who like the stuff. Get four or five people together playing cards and a fifth doesn't last long.

I know nothing about Frank O'Connor, but if all we have to go on regarding his alleged alcoholism is Barbara Branden's word (who charged Linz with alcoholism on nothing more than vapors) and a bunch of empty booze bottles, then the objectivity in Objectivism is long gone. A lack of evidence is just that, no evidence of whatever has been alleged. Conspiracy-mongers will use that as proof that the conspiracy is even bigger, stronger, and more diabolical than we ever imagined. I think we can do better.

Andy

(Edited by Andy Postema on 9/12, 8:46am)

Post 161

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 9:25am

There are too many unknowns for us to ever figure out the significance (if any) of Frank's booze bottle collection (if any). At any point in the story, people could have lied or been mistaken, so we don't know (1) Was there actually a booze bottle collection, (2) Did he use them for some purpose, (3) Were they emptied of their original contents by him or by someone else, (4) If he emptied them of their original contents, does that indicate alcoholism, normal moderate drinking, or packrat behavior over several decades?

One thing I don't get is this idea that alcoholics will have numerous empty booze bottles lying around. I've seen this as a premise on TV crime shows as well; oh look at all these empty bottles, the woman was clearly an alcoholic. If this is not merely a plot device used on crime shows, can an alcoholic on this forum explain this to me? Why wouldn't the alcoholic seek to get rid of the evidence? The O'Connors lived in an apartment. I haven't lived in a big-city apartment building, but I remember that the high-rise dorms I've lived in had garbage chutes that you'd chuck your garbage down. If their building had a garbage chute, wouldn't Frank have jettisoned the bottles in an effort to hide his alcoholism?

What I find plausible, if I may engage in conjecture like everyone else, is that Frank liked a good stiff drink now and then, and perhaps he felt that it helped him to deal with the difficulties of living with such a forceful personality as Ayn Rand. Sure, he loved her, and he recognized her greatness. But I can see that she might not always have been easy to live with. This is just speculation, and really has nothing to do with whether there was a stash of bottles in his studio. The alcoholism claim is just a smear, or at least an overdramatization, in my opinion.

Post 162

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 9:28am

Andy, you wrote:

I think we can do better.

We certainly can do better. Objectivity for instance. Used empty booze bottles are not conclusive evidence of alcoholism (which, I see once again is being set up as a false dichotomy where you want to push people like me to one end) and they are certainly not evidence of a pomo painting technique.

Used empty booze bottles mean one thing only. There used to be booze in them.

Period.

That is objectivity. That is the fact. All else is speculation, ranging from the plausible to the absurd.

Michael

Post 163

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 9:36am

To the "empty booze bottles = alcoholic" crowd (thanks, Andy):

As Sigmund Freud supposedly said, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." And sometimes a booze bottle is just a booze bottle. Alcohol has many rational uses. One of those uses is tremor reduction. As a target shooter I have personally used alcohol for tremor reduction, and I credit moderate ingestion of alcohol with a significant contribution to my MIT varsity letter in Pistol.

Elderly people often suffer from tremors due to disease (e.g. Parkinson's) or side effects from medication (e.g. tardive diskinesia.) Tremor would have interfered with Frank O'Connor's work as a painter, and he may have used alcohol for tremor reduction, just as I used it during target shooting competitions. This is not an indicator or result of alcoholism: I am now under doctor's orders to drink a glass of beer or wine every day for health reasons, and I often forget to.

Without getting into concepts and definitions of honesty, I do think that Barbara Branden has an unfortunate tendency to confirmation bias: if she wishes to think that someone is an alcoholic, facts that have other reasonable explanations tend to get interpreted so as to confirm her wish. Except among people who understand confirmation bias and make a conscious commitment to keep it under control, confirmation bias is unfortunately very common. There is at least as much confirmation bias in PARC as in PAR. Caveat lector.

Post 164

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 9:42am

Adam,

One of those uses is tremor reduction. As a target shooter I have personally used alcohol for tremor reduction, and I credit moderate ingestion of alcohol with a significant contribution to my MIT varsity letter in Pistol.

It is interesting that you mentioned that. When I used to play darts, I always played better after a couple of beers.

Andy

Post 165

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 9:42am

Laure,

Our posts crossed. You wrote:

If this is not merely a plot device used on crime shows, can an alcoholic on this forum explain this to me? Why wouldn't the alcoholic seek to get rid of the evidence?

As one who has done this, I can tell you the answer - shame. When you drink too much (or use drugs) you don't think straight. Your room, or whatever your own turf is, is your own sanctuary. The rest of the world is where you meet others.

If you are hiding your problem (like I did), you don't want to run the risk of being found out. Any possible risk of being seen with indisputable evidence - even in a corridor, becomes a major obstacle, so you stop thinking about it. In your sanctuary you are safe. Then the bottles pile up over time.

Once again, I'm not saying that this was Frank's case. But the possibility is real and believable - I did it. I know of so many others who did it also - in real life, not on a crime show.

I can see this happening in the case of him not being an alcoholic too. It was his private business and he did not want to discuss the "moral implications" of drinking or anything else. He might just have wanted a drink once in a while without any other complications.

(Well, just maybe you can buy a bunch of booze, throw it out and paint with the bottles. That sounds real reasonable in light of what I have lived.)

I agree with you that all is speculation at this point. I see no smear, but I greatly liked your word, overdramatization as a possibility.

I stand by Barbara having written that episode honestly believing in what she was relating, and not attempting to maliciously trash Frank's reputation.

Michael

Post 166

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 9:45am

Laure,

We don't even know they were BOOZE bottles, just that they were rows of bottles, according to the maid (the only witness here), who was incensed that BB drew the conclusion of alcoholism from this. And Barbara's latest change, from "rows" to "piles" is interesting: Someone who has bottles in rows may have some other reason for keeping them (like the guy who uses booze bottles to mix furniture stains "lines them up" so he can see the difference in the pigment, for example) whereas "piles" implies they may have just been discarded after drinking bouts.

But of course it's silly and absurd and bullshit and a whitewash to consider the possibility that they were anything but the remnants of secretive boozing -- even though tossing them down the garbage chute was a much easier and more effective cover-up strategy, as you rightly suggest.

Post 167

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 10:02am

Adam,

As to "confirmation bias," unlike either of the Brandens, I am NOT asserting that O'Connor was or was not an alcoholic. I am asserting that the Brandens are not to be even provisionally believed on the point. This is true for so many other issues, as well. The Brandens make many assertions of fact and opinion. Part I of my book, at least, is simply an analysis of their credibility, not necessarily or always the truth or falsehood of anything they assert. My book is NOT a biography of anyone. See the difference?

Michael,

It is much easier to see that an assertion is empty or unbelievable than to see what were the motives behind the assertion. The total package, and several of the particular allegations (I was being a bit sarcastic, apologies), clearly imply more than innocent error--when considering the full context. But there are many issues where it is not clear what the motive or cause of the error or distortion was.

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 9/12, 10:06am)

Post 168

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 10:35am

James,

You just wrote:

It is much easier to see that an assertion is empty or unbelievable than to see what were the motives behind the assertion. The total package, and several of the particular allegations (I was being a bit sarcastic, apologies), clearly imply more than innocent error--when considering the full context. But there are many issues where it is not clear what the motive or cause of the error or distortion was.

So I am to understand that "more than innocent error" is your opinion, not a statement of fact. Correct?

How do I reconcile this attitude with your allegation on page 6 of PARC about the Branden works (merely as one example):

"... monuments of dishonesty on a scale so profound as to literally render them valueless as historical documents... "

Are you stating an opinion here or a fact?

You claim the books are dishonest - essentially that dishonesty was the motive for producing them. Do you have any proof of that, other than pointing out some inconsistencies and stating your opinion?

Michael

Post 169

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 11:06am

Michael,

In my book, I also repeatedly state that there is undeniably much truth in the Brandens' books. I do also state that many of the errors identified in these books may not stem from explicit dishonesty, while others do, and their motives are identifiable. I also show that what they added to the record (over WHO IS AYN RAND? and the taped interviews the Brandens recorded with Ayn Rand in the early 1960s, for example) is mostly and fundamentally dishonest--e.g., Rand's "insane" romantic jealousy, O'Connor's alcoholism, their own roles in Rand's life, etc.--and that their main theses amount to a giant edifice of deception--yes.

And, this is a complex judgment based on an integrated assessment of the evidence, and one I arrived at reluctantly.

These things can all be true at the same time.

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 9/12, 11:16am)

Post 170

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 11:17am

Nathaniel Branden (or Barbara, for that matter) must take some little comfort in knowing that he can save money on his tombstone inscription by hiring James Valliant, who would no doubt shorten it from "Here lies Nathaniel Branden" to "Lies."

REB

(Edited by Roger Bissell on 9/13, 10:20am)

Post 171

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 11:36am

James,

The confirmation bias in your book is not on this issue, which in any case relates to Frank O'Connor and does not bear directly on what you came to believe about Barbara Branden. There is some good evidence for the latter judgement, but then you interpret lots of questionable stuff in ways that confirm your pre-judgements, even things that have other, equally reasonable or more reasonable interpretations.

One instance of confirmation bias (and this is the one I'll cite here, because I'm rather sure that your interpretation is false:)

In footnote 10 on page 389, you speculate on Barbara Branden's motives for giving Ayn Rand's father's first name as "Fronz," 'while all other sources and scholars are in agreement that his name was "Zinovy."' You speculate, "Perhaps Ms. Branden is attempting to draw more dubious "patterns" between Rand's father and her husband, Frank O'Connor." But it so happens that my parents were born in ethnically Jewish families in the Russian Empire in 1909 - and they and my other relatives had different native-sounding first names in different languages. For example, my father was Tsvi in Hebrew, Hersh in Yiddish, Genrik in Russian and so on. It was the Yiddish name that was used in everyday life within the family, even though they talked to each other much more often in Polish (or German or Russian) than in Yiddish. So it would not have been unusual if Ayn's father were named Franz/Fronz in German/Yiddish and Zinovy in Russian; Zinovy would have been on official documents examined by scholars and Fronz would have been Alyssa's father's name in childhood memories recounted by Ayn Rand to Barbara Branden.

So Barbara Branden exhibits confirmation bias in writing about Ayn Rand and Frank O'Connor - and you show the same bias in writing about the Brandens. Don't worry, I am not about to accuse you of dishonesty on that basis.

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 9/12, 11:58am)

Post 172

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 12:09pm

I'm perplexed. It would seem that the only person who has spoken thus far with any first-hand experience with the phenomenon of alcoholism is Michael Stuart Kelly. The rest of you can barely credit its existence. There's also the notion floating around, all too common among the ignorant, that alcoholism exists at the far end of some behavioral continuum of "drinking habits;" full-blown alcoholism exists somewhere on the far side of "falling down drunk on a daily basis."

I've known literally hundreds of self-proclaimed alcoholics and heard hundreds of their stories over the years. The best argument for the existence of "alcoholism" is the stultifying sameness, the sheer repetitiveness of these stories. Hiding booze bottles is a proverbial indicator of alcoholism precisely because it is so unnervingly commonplace. As is the bizarre lengths folks will go to hide their problem.

My mom was an alcoholic, but my dad went through 17 years of marriage without finding out. She had her act down. When we'd go out to dinner, she would order a single manhattan. She'd take a sip, discuss the quality with my dad, perhaps compare it to the one she'd had years ago at Bardelli's, and pass it to my dad to finish. She never drank more than that in public.

Then one summer while she was away caring for her ailing father, my dad decided to surprise her by cleaning the kitchen for her. You see, the kitchen was her sanctum. When my father and mother argued, the argument would end when she went into the kitchen and slammed the door. Eventually we stopped even having meals in there and ate always in the dining room. So when my dad decided that we'd go in, it was by then unprecedented.

The place was filthy. My mother was a gourmet cook, the kind that could make saltimbocca from memory. Thing is, she always made enough food for at least 10 (ours was a family of four) and she always bought the ingredients fresh. So there were at least ten small bags of floor, and similar amounts of rice and sugar, all the ingredients for her cooking stuffed into the cabinets. All of them were infested with worms. So much food was simply rotting in cupboards. And underneath the sink and behind a couple rows of kitchen items in all the lower cupboards were at least forty empty fifths, vodka mainly, and gin. Coincidently, that night, my dad got a call from my mother's family's doctor (the first ever from this man) demanding to know why my father never got my mother the help she needed, "Didn't he know she was an alcoholic?" My dad never knew.

My parents got divorced soon after and a few years later, my mother was killed by a drinking buddy of hers in a fight with 0.4 alcohol level in her blood, enough to put a non-alcoholic in a coma if not kill them. And we might never have known.

I'm sorry if by posting this, y'all see me as some kind of Oprah-fied therapy apologist, but alcoholism is an ugly damn disease that wrecks perfectly decent people's lives by the millions. For anyone with any familiarity with its virulence, what Kilbourne and Branden did with the "drooling beast" episode was certainly worth the risks. Nobody who knows anything about the disease confronts a man they believe to be so afflicted without love. It's just not worth it otherwise.

-Kevin

Post 173

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 12:11pm

Adam,

I did not claim dishonesty in Ms. Branden's use of the name "Fronz," and I prefaced that issue with the word "perhaps" as you accurately quoted. I do note that "Fronz" and "Frank" are similar and that its use is consistent with Ms. Branden's theme of "parallels." The whole discussion of this in a footnote. I also wonder what her source is for this, since she is so alone in its use. Was it Rand? For the purposes of that footnote, I specifically kept open the possibility that this name has some basis in fact--even though she is our sole source for it. More to the point, even if Rand's father was sometimes called "Fronz," this has no impact whatever on my interpretation, since Ms. Branden never once calls him "Zinovy." So, I'm not sure what you mean...

Roger,

It took hundreds of pages to say what I actually am saying--and to demonstrate it.

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 9/12, 4:26pm)

Post 174

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 4:44pm

Kevin, I'm sorry you had to endure such a sad situation. All of us probably know of some similar situation if not one so troubling. I have personally discovered the substance abuse of no less than three friends and done something about it to help them, successfully, thank goodness.

BUT -- your testimonial is not a badge that entitles you to make any accusation against anyone, let alone Frank O'Connor.

AND -- having gone through personal trauma with alcoholism does not give you or anyone else the right to pass judgment publicly on someone without any evidence, no matter how bad you imagine the consequences of inaction to be.

This whole argument is indeed in danger of being Oprahfied if we now are to trot out personal experiences as some kind of proof that O'Connor (or Linz) is an alcoholic. Dear god.

Casey

Post 175

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 4:58pm

James,

There is no reason to think that by the time Barbara Branden wrote PAR, she had either examined some offical document - the only place she could have seen Ayn Rand's father referred to as "Zinovy" - or had ever heard Ayn Rand's father called by any name other than his familial name, "Fronz."

Although you prefaced your hypothesis with "perhaps," you appear "invested" in trying to preserve it. Your reasons are your business, or at least ought to be.

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 9/12, 5:01pm)

Post 176

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 5:12pm

Not really "invested" in this one at all, Adam. That's why it's in a footnote and prefaced with "perhaps."

And, I agree totally. The best case scenario for Ms. Branden is that the biographer is ignorant of the name of the father of her subject. The main points of the footnote are: 1. Ms. Branden is alone in her use of this name and gives us no source for it; and, 2. It is oddly reminiscent of her other theme, although any such accidental parallel, of course, would be dubious. Where the heck does she get it?

By examining issues as comprehensively as possible, and in detail, one can appear to be like the T.V. detective Adrian Monk--obsessed. The point is not to make more of each point than is merited. My thesis hardly depends on this. It just remains curious. Of course, Ms. Branden may only be ignorant of Dad's legal name. No biggy.

Post 177

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 4:56pm

We really haven't talked about Ayn Rand on this thread for quite a time, have we?

--Brant

Post 178

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 5:14pm

Adam,

No, James' reasons are not his business, nor should they be.

Barbara Branden explicitly drew parallels between Frank O'Connor and Rand's father. She was the one insisting there was some kind of psychological syndrome going on there, as evidenced from her flight of fancy based on a single family snapshot, you will remember.

And are you coming to the conclusion sans evidence that Rand's father's family name WAS Fronz? Where did you get that? James has footnoted where he got the basis for all of his inferences.

If Barbara Branden has no basis herself for asserting Rand's father's name was Fronz (no one ELSE has ever called him Fronz in any public record or testimony of any kind -- unless you know of a source?) then she's filling in the gaps with frog DNA, which does just happen to fold right in with her strained thesis about Rand and her father.

Casey

Post 179

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 5:19pm