"If the characters are taken literally, are they healthy humans?" [Ellen] This is an extremely important question because it applies not only to reading a novel but to living. Rand's characters differ in regard to their realism and/or role model status. Regarding Eddie Willers, Ellen asks whether "whatever is right" is a good answer for a ten-year old or whether it shows a lack of adventurousness. Part of the answer is Barbara's point that there is a distinction between taking something literally and literarily. Ayn Rand is not writing realistic fiction but stylized fiction. Eddie's quote is put in the book to stress his unbending nature where ethics is concerned. But Eddie is not an innovator, not on the mental level of the main heroes, so it would be a mistake to portray him as a leader or innovator, rather than a follower. Also, a good novelist has secondary characters who we only catch glimpses of. They are more one-dimensional, written to stress a trait or a characteristic. And so you can't really ask whether this single quote of Eddie's shows lack of independence if he were real, unless you know whether in another mood or situation he expressed an independent streak. What one is supposed to do in reading literature or in absorbing or trying to emulate Eddie (as opposed to doing psychology--a different context) is to abstract out that attitude of always doing what is right, forgetting whether it would be said at that age, and use it as inspiration to do so in one's own life. This leads to a very important point: Ayn Rand not only did not fully flesh out all of her characters, but she did not sketch her good characters as -perfect-. We can see that in the confusions and mistakes made by Rearden and Dagny in regard to, in the one case, not understanding himself, his moral code, his sexual preferences fully. And in the other case, some degree of tunnel-visioned focus on the job, saving the railroad to the exclusion of doing other things, thinking through other things. "Some exemplar if it takes her two years to realize that she's burning with desire for a man. Where's her awareness of her own signals?" [Ellen] Without these mistakes or conflicts or short-sightedness there would be no story and thus no novel. Certainly, the other or primary heroes (Francisco, Galt) are shown making fewer of these mistakes across the entire novel. But there is another point: To be too critical or disillusioned with Dagny or not to view her as a role model because she is not fully aware of even important things about herself is to deny human nature and the degree to which even towering, admirable people make silly mistakes or have huge blind spots. But the important point is that they are no less admirable because they are not perfect. I'm going to come up with a new, original thought now, and remember that you heard it here for the very first time: Nobody's perfect. (Not even you.) [There, I've said it. I've been dying to find a context to say that to an audience of Objectivists :-)] Nonetheless, it is also quite important to consciously remind oneself when the characters' attributes are ones that should -not- be literally emulated, without translation. Roark's indifference to people and unwillingness to grant a single word more than necessary dramatizes his independence in a novel, but one does not literally manifest independence in that extreme a form in everyday life, nor are the members of the architecture profession literally quite so much of a mindless herd as they are required to be in the novel, nor are so many people at the top of professions mediocrities, nor as far as I know is a Toohey literally possible. There are two opposite kinds of mistakes those who are basically admirers (Objectivists...and ordinary fans) have made over the years encountering Ayn Rand's towering heroic characters ... and the world of her novels more widely. Both of these mistakes are very widespread and highly damaging. Both are mistakes in how to read, use, or gain sustenance from literature (and the other arts) and mistakes in what degree of embrace or distance to take with powerful role models. One is to absorb everything about the heroes or the book too uncritically into your soul, becoming a Dagny workaholic or a Dominique alienation-and-contempt-atrice or a Roarkian impervious anti-social monosyllabist...or someone who thinks himself surrounded by evil in a vicious, verge-of-the-Dark-Ages world. The other is to turn away from that (from the characters or from Rand or from the novels) when one finds an imperfection or a one-dimensionality or a mistake, rejecting the character or viewing him as not fully admirable, and not implementing him as a role model for how one should live one's life in -any- form. Phil