On Eddie and Cheryl …

August 5, 2012

*Gasp* You have not finished the book? Tsk!

Cheryl is young, she’s decent, compassionate, has faith in the best in humanity; basically everything Rand seems to hold in contempt. She left home and hearth and moved to the big city to learn more of life. Jim shows up loves her innocence and hope, how she looks up to him, is impressed by him. Plus he’d like the whole, “Oh look at what a great guy I am, I took this poor naive girl from her lowly job and brought her to the top of the world aren’t I just awesome” feeling he’d get. Jim would be able to convince Cheryl, who tends to see the good in people, that he is all “that”. I’ve got no problem with a young woman, freshly planted in the big bad city with a happy, happy, joy, joy look at the world being taken in with a Jim Taggart; he’s rich, he must be brilliant he runs a successful railroad . It happens every day. Guys like him look for girls like her. And girls like her don’t always figure it out after the third cocktail party, but eventually … girls like her always figure it out in the end. And in the end they become Dagny-like (before Dagny de-evolved in to a psycho).

In reality the Cheryl’s of the world may throw a brick through a window once she discovered she was betrayed so-to-speak; she may blow up and light the bastards car on fire, or just cry and eat a freezer full of ice-cream and have the pity party of the century but she wouldn’t off herself.

And Eddie … you have to read the end so we can deal with Eddie.

I’ve been trying to figure how Rand saw Galt and his ilk as the best that man can be. Trying. And failing. Galt is a leader and the rest blindly follow because he says so, they act and react to him like he’s a damn god. He’s like that dude Jim Jones or any successful cult leader, pick your favorite … a wolf in shepherd clothing leading bleating sheep. Eddie … in reality it’s as you say they couldn’t survive without the guys like Eddie, the right hand guy. In my view Eddie and Cheryl are closer to the best man can be than Galt, Frisco and Ragnar.

Hank’s the only character I liked through the whole book because he seemed to be the only one who did what he did in the end for HIS reasons, not Galt’s.

Just a side rant; how are the music makers and dreamers of dreams prime examples of objectivism at work? Um … yeah that doesn’t make sense to me either. The woman worked in Hollywood before she became who she became, she’s primarily a fiction writer yet she creates and promotes this philosophy of Objectivism? To me it seems a contradiction.

How do we want to do this? I’ve been trying to figure that out … chapter by chapter?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s