I for one would like to see this as a trend here, agree with mccannnon01.

Some points about Rand's characters. All, nearly or all, of the bad characters are easily identified from when they enter. They are shallow, without interest or intellect. Two exceptions- Jim Taggart and the scientist, high IQ maybe but at the same time 'silly'. Could specific incidents be shown that disagree with the above summary?

The few real heroes stand out having complexity, Dagny and Hank, they are super intelligent, hard workers, productive. But on the big issues they are slow, they agonize, analyze and evaluate, a change of mind is time consuming. Are there others in that class? There are many 'good' characters who have seen the light, on approach from Galt, or otherwise, the change is quick - well hours, days, not months. This class of character are admirable, but not interesting.

Then there are those who do not fit the above description, not many, Rand is not a fence sitter.

To me, there is a class of Rand character who are very interesting, hard workers, the small scale achievers, stable and reliable, not the great intellects, but those who have got the big things right. Eddie and Cheryl belong here, not many of them.

etc.

I have not kept strictly to SamMG's question, but this could be done on follow up.

Welcome to The Gulch.

Hi SMB, and welcome!

I'd love to see more of this type of discussion here in the Gulch. It's why I originally joined.

Over the years there have been a few discussion threads that delved deeply into AS. There was one that went chapter-by-chapter for a while, and I wish I remembered who was responsible, to give them credit for it. Also there was recently one on The God of the Machine (by Isabel Paterson).

These are the kinds of discussion I like best. I can picture John, Midas, Frisco and the gang sitting in Midas's living room with a big fire with glasses of Akston's wine and having these types of discussion. That's as close to AR's Gulch as I can hope to get.

Enjoy!
VG

My favorite is still the ever-enigmatic Eddie Willers. He does his job well, leaving the reader mystified before we discover that we all are Eddie.

I like to think that I actually met Eddie. Long ago I was talking to an old (very old) rail worker, who expressed to me his delight that Atlas Shrugged had such a good understanding of rail operations. I think he cut his teeth on steam. His words did not focus on the philosophical aspects of the book, but on, "How we run the railroad." I think he was particularly pleased with the section where the electric block signals had failed and they had to revert to written orders and hand signals.

"Now in non-fiction!"

Do as you did with this question for starters and see where it goes. When this Gulch was younger there was a great deal of discussion of that type, but I suspect many topics became exhausted with use and things slowly moved on to mainly current events. Lots of good people here willing to take up topics when they are posted. Lots of humor here as well. Enjoy the ride.

Good post. I need my thoughts shaken, not stirred every now and then, and interactions like this do a good job of it. I hope that when the time comes, I can at least be an Eddie Willers, but I 'm working towards the fisherman in shorts. So many minor characters in all the human aspects leaves me hungry for backstories. They appear simple, in-and-out lessons, yet they had to arrive at that place through their lifetimes. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall while AR was creating her masterpiece.

"analysis of made up characters?"
They are "made up" but represent types found in real life.

Post anything you want. I will agree with the other posters who note that we occasionally need a good refresher on things we haven't discussed for years. Welcome!

analysis of made up characters?

i rather look to REAL people for examples and analysis

with all their REAL flaws and Heroism