Well, let’s. Other than secondary characters like The Fountainhead’s Henry Cameron (a great architect whose spirit has been broken), which of Rand’s heroes are like this?
Surely you would be rich and famous and high-status like you deserve if not for them, those unappreciative bastards and their conspiracy of mediocrity.
A fair question. But an old, bitter, un-achieving character isn’t likely to inspire much heroic empathy and desire to emulate. So Rand didn’t write John Galt that way; she wrote the villains that way.
The question is what happens when some real-world person takes John Galt as a role model. In the story he’s not just a former great physicist, he’s all buff and heroic and has his own little survivalist ranch and society actually falls down without him. But in reality...
So the answer to Arundelo’s question would be “none of Rand’s heroes are that way, while her villains are that way.” Wouldn’t such a choice by a writer generally indicate disapproval of such a trait? Particularly given Rand’s theory of Romatic Art, I’d say that’s a certainty in her case.
The question is what happens when some real-world person takes John Galt as a role model.
I have a rather limited sample of Objectivists that I have known sufficiently well to know that they in fact took Rand seriously. 3 people. They all turned out quite well.
What’s your data?
I can’t detect an actual case being made in your comments, though I think I see a lot of innuendo. Do you think you’ve made a clear and compelling case? Could you spell it out for me if you think you did?
Well, let’s. Other than secondary characters like The Fountainhead’s Henry Cameron (a great architect whose spirit has been broken), which of Rand’s heroes are like this?
A fair question. But an old, bitter, un-achieving character isn’t likely to inspire much heroic empathy and desire to emulate. So Rand didn’t write John Galt that way; she wrote the villains that way.
The question is what happens when some real-world person takes John Galt as a role model. In the story he’s not just a former great physicist, he’s all buff and heroic and has his own little survivalist ranch and society actually falls down without him. But in reality...
So the answer to Arundelo’s question would be “none of Rand’s heroes are that way, while her villains are that way.” Wouldn’t such a choice by a writer generally indicate disapproval of such a trait? Particularly given Rand’s theory of Romatic Art, I’d say that’s a certainty in her case.
I have a rather limited sample of Objectivists that I have known sufficiently well to know that they in fact took Rand seriously. 3 people. They all turned out quite well.
What’s your data?
I can’t detect an actual case being made in your comments, though I think I see a lot of innuendo. Do you think you’ve made a clear and compelling case? Could you spell it out for me if you think you did?
The first example to come to mind is Richard Halley from Atlas Shrugged, but I don’t remember the book all that well.