Philip Coates

"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

> "hope you'll stay, at least long enough to see the overall thrust...this board here is still very, very young...try to be bit more tolerant inside yourself (to yourself) of the meanderings of some members" Guys, I overreacted in my first post. And was too negative too quickly.

> Still like to see more of you however. When I get a "put down" or an instantly hostile or defensive reaction to what were honest criticisms (accompanied by one compliment), rather than having them addressed, it doesn't make me eager to post again. Phil (It's an old Objectivist story: no matter how valid your case, when you criticize a student of Objectivism, too often you've simply caused resentment or made an enemy, not caused him to stop and ponder or carefully, thoughfully, unemotionally address what you said, point by point.)

Kevin, your "Super Persons Anonymous" story is clever, funny and satirical, delightful, and well-written. You have a great deal of talent and potential as a writer!

I just joined this website today. A major lure was that I was very interested in the original purpose of this thread which was to discuss Ayn Rand's characters as models to follow - in the original post raised by Ellen and replied to by Barbara on whether Rand's characters are emulatable, to be taken literally as opposed to literarily. And I was formulating some points on this as concretely applied to Dagny, Rearden, Eddie. That in itself could be grist for hundreds of posts. Unfortunately, as I continued to read the thread, before much time had even been allowed, it seems to have veered off subject or gotten hijacked by two or three people into any other sort of issues related to Rand's writing style, where people lived, personal history with each of the novels, etc., and so on. So by the time I am ready to post, people are immersed in conversations on new subjects. From experience, this means that several topics tend to interleave. And posters may tend to get long-winded or post many times in a row because they try to address several different topics at once. That's okay if the hosts and members on thist site like to have that sort of threads and those sorts of discussions. Doesn't work for me, though, so I think I'll go back to the several other websites I look at. Maybe I'll check back on the site in the future.... ...Also on this site, looking at some of the more philosophical threads which would otherwise interest me, there are a few -extremely- long-winded or post-every-half-hour or post-on-every-topic people. As a matter of personal preference, I much prefer "less is more". Personally, I like non-repetitious posts. And I don't enjoy hearing the same people on every topic since - even if they have good ideas - I end up hearing them many times. I like Barbara's essentialized style of posting. This is simply a matter of personal preference...and due to having limited time. [To conclude on a positive note, I think the intention of this site, however, to focus on producing new work, on esthetics, creativity is a great one.] Philip Coates