| | Dayaamm, this thread has progressed while I was gone!
Linz, all I can say is thank you most profoundly for seeing my side. I assure you that my choice of people I admire is rarely misguided. You wrote movingly about your friendship with Barbara and then you stated:
To lose such a friendship in such a bitter way is a terrible wrench. I wish it could be retrieved.
It can.
It most definitely can.
This needs good will on both sides.
The very first thing that must be done is what you are about to do. Read Valliant's book. You have read Barbara's, so read the other side. I think that truth and examination of facts are always welcome, regardless of where they fall - and I mean that completely objectively for both sides. (Did I say both? Sorry. There are at least eight sides so far and still counting.)
(Also - I can't wait to see your view of his style... //;-)
I will address the other posters in other posts, but let me state something from personal history that has strong bearing on why I have stayed out of the "Frank alcoholic" debate.
As most know already from my articles and posts, I suffered from severe alcoholism for five years and heavy addiction to a hard drug for another five years. During that whole period I worked, produced some really beautiful music and even translated brilliantly. Erratically but brilliantly. Now here's the weird part.
There are people with whom I encountered on an almost daily basis who had no idea that I was strung out. That happened during the alcoholism and during the addiction.
I hid it.
I hid it well.
Even as I craved.
I simply did not let them see me in an altered state.
You might think then that I did not get strung out that badly, but I can assure you that I did. (I am not proud of this - but the reality was extremely bad and the truth no longer hurts - I also want to emphasize that I only mention it because of the present argument.)
I am not saying that this was Frank O'Connor's case, that he was hiding it. I was not there. All I know is that Barbara claims he drank to the point of alcoholism and Valliant reports others who claim that they never encountered him like that.
I know what can be and can't from personal experience. It is easily within the realm of possibility to be a falling down drunk or paranoid crackhead and hide it from people you meet everyday. I did it - for ten years. This is not speculating in an armchair. This is living day after day - and ten years is a very long time.
Let me stress, however, that this knowledge does not mean that I have an opinion about Frank's alcoholism. I don't - because I simply don't know. I only know what people say.
My own take on Barbara's account is that I believe with all my heart and mind that she sincerely believes that Frank was an alcoholic and reported that in good faith. I find it completely contrary to everything I know of human nature to think that she lied.
Could she be mistaken? Sure. Could she be seriously mistaken for any number of non-malevolent reasons? Sure. Could she be correct? Sure. But lie from malice about something like that?
Sorry I ain't buying it.
Linz, that Drooling Beast thing in her mind had no malicious intent whatsoever. I know it stung deep and I wish I could do something to undo the harm. It was completely misguided in my view (as I let her know privately), but I saw absolutely no wish on her part to destroy your reputation or destroy/takeover Solo - or any other evil intent. In her heart she thought she was helping you (James too). She has not told me anything about what I will say next, but here goes. I would bet my boody or anything else that she deeply regrets having hurt your feelings. Underneath everything, she cares for you much more than you realize.
OK, maybe with friends like that, who needs enemies? But Barbara Branden is not you enemy. She never was. I don't think she ever will be, regardless of what course this whole thing takes. And she is terribly hurt too.
Barbara is not dishonest. She might be anything you want to think bad about her, but she is not dishonest. (Even on the Peron issue, her view was not dishonest - blind for a while maybe, but not dishonest - and I ended up furnishing her with damning material to look at. I will not relate anything she said to me at the time, however, as I do not speak for her.)
Back to Frank. I know enough about the dark side of living to know that I consider his alcoholism to be a 50-50 proposition - simply because we rely on the accounts of honorable third parties who say different things. None of us were there (except for a small handful - and even they were not intimate with Ayn Rand and Frank on the level the Brandens were - or even Peikoff).
So what should we do? We should examine everything if we want to come to any conclusion. That's what we should do. Each one of us has a rational capacity to judge. So each should look and judge.
You want to know something even stranger? I am coming to think there is no malice in this whole story at all. I think that Barbara and Nathaniel sincerely believe in what they wrote. And as strange as it may sound coming from me, I think that Valliant also sincerely believes in what he wrote, however misguided I deem his approach to be.
I will not defend Barbara against contradictions of fact and fiascoes. Or even against poor standards of evaluation. (God only knows I've had enough of all of that in my own life.) But I will defend her character against slander (as I defend you). She is not the dishonorable woman that Valliant claims she is. I'll take some of his facts. Others I will not accept due to the extreme bias of his presentation (which I have read for the most part). And I hold no truck with the dishonor.
Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/10, 9:19pm)
|
|
