That was SO incredible. the first time I read Atlas as a teenager, I just could not comprehend that any human being would rather be shot than make a decision..Many years later, I believe it.

The most villainous character in Atlas Shrugged is exactly the same as that most villainous character in real life - the faceless, conforming mind-slob of an apathetic sense-driven superficial douchebag who just goes with the flow, believing what s/he is told, never questioning, never voicing his/her opposition to anything and (these days) not even bothering to vote.

In the words of Albert Einstein, "He has been given his big brain by mistake. Unprotected spinal marrow was all he needed".

Without such a faceless jellyfish existing in countless numbers, Wesley Mouch would rise no higher than a filing clerk. TT's executives and top workers would walk out, start their own rail company and crash TT's stock price to pennies, then buy out Jim's controlling share and regenerate TT with Dagny as CEO.. Robert Stadler would be back teaching at Patrick Henry University, carefully toeing the line, having given up on any idea of funding scientific research at the point of a gun.

True. But at least it was his own money he thought he could buy happiness with, not someone else's.

When I use words like "hero" and "villain" and now, "anti-villain," I rely on lessons I learned at writers' conferences. A literary hero must make a life-altering decision. A literary villain pursues his course with a single-minded determination and will be stopped only by death or other total and ignominious defeat.

A hero serves a just cause; an anti-hero serves an evil one.

Likewise, a villain serves an evil cause, and an anti-villain serves a just one.

But one of the first things my instructors told me to disabuse myself of, is the classic definition of "hero" as "a character serving a just cause."

I stand corrected. Partly.

He was "villainous" until he came to his senses.

I still take issue with his willingly supporting his brother Philip, and his wife, and mother in law. He was demonstrating a textbook definition of Altruism.

Yes, Galt actually opted out of the struggle before he got in to the system. His pain and the price he paid were of a different kind.
But you're right; Rearden had to claw his way through all the confusion and pain to find his way. He had incredible strength, and I think Rand showed that well, even in the admiration that the Gulchers had for Rearden.

But his sin was committed in innocence. His error was to accept their moral code.

Do you mean Lillian Rearden, his wife? Or his mother?

"a quivering mass of jelly". Oooh, I love that description. Perfect

I'll tell you why *I* count Rearden as the real hero of AS. Because he had a decision to make. The whole book was about his, and Dagny's, journey to reach a decision about what kind of life they would lead and whom they would support.

He suffered a lot of pain before he overcame those obstacles. On the other hand, Galt was the man "without guilt, or pain, or fear". He was innocent

Rearden, far from being a villain, is one of the novel's heroes. He comes to realize what a mistake he has made, where his guilt truly lies, and what to do about both.

He thought morals were irrelevant, didn't he?

You know, it's interesting to me that both Jim Taggart and Stadler had intelligence, opportunity, ability, and they still chose to be evil.

Sorry, James Taggart is an anti-industrialist (think of him as the flipside of the Rearden coin). He has no power beyond what he can get from or give to others. And he is oblivious to his motivation until it is pointed out to him by Galt. And once he knows he can no longer live how he was before (again like Rearden).

I vote for Mouch

Sure, just like now.

I agree with Stadler being a villian. He was a man of the mind who sold out to the looters and moochers to get their money to continue his research. He was also the only person that Galt took personal revenge against because he was a true traitor to the men of the mind. By specifically requesting his presence to the looters and moochers, he singled him out for their scrutiny.

Rearden wasn't villianous, he was misguided. He is only as villianous as the other industrialist that go on strike once their eyes are opened. Once Rearden was ready to accept the truth he walked away just like the rest.

I was going to say Floyd Ferris because he was also a man of the mind, but he was never really in that group. He was a thug of the muscle because he just wanted to create methods to extort the men of the mind to do what he and the other looters wanted.

+1

Mouch

If he were elected he'd be accountable, wouldn't he?

Agree that Stadler tops the list, but what about Margaret Rearden...she pulled some pretty dirty and significant tricks...

I do not think Mouch was the worse. He was an idealog and "Robin Hood." He believed his own propaganda.

I think those who know better, and continue down the road are the worse. That makes them liars and hypocrites.

Mouch takes the cake in my book. He manipulates to gain power. We already know that elected officials do this, but voters carry some responsibility by enabling them to do it. Bureaucrats are in my mind a whole other evil.