That's why he bought a human.

I think you were supposed to :)

If Jim Taggart had bought a chihuahua or pekinese or whatever, it would have thrown itself under a truck at first opportunity, as many dogs do if living in impossible environment.

I'm just a bit soft-hearted. I really felt for the poor bugger.

I was good with Eddie's ending. I understood the warning

Eddie's demise never sat well with me. I never quite understood why AR wrote it that way.

I notice the AS part 3 movie changed it to a rescue scenario - Gulch members going out to recruit him.

Great, I just disagree on one point. If Eddie did not make it to the gulch then Cheryl would not have either.

I thought she ended her life because she realized her husband, who she thought was a great person who she lived, actually had a sick desire to keep her down to make himself feel good. That alone wouldn't have made her suicidal. She meets those charitable workers, whose main purpose is to help people in need. She realizes they want to do the same damn thing as Jim. They want to "help" in an altruistic way that involves being smug about taking the time to help a lesser human being. That's the tragedy of it. If she had run into one of the protagonists or someone like Roark was to the troubled young man on a bike, it could have been different. The reader wants to scream "Wait! There's a whole world of people with whom you could enter mutually beneficial agreements/relationships. Forget about these sanctimonious jerks."

He admittted why. In their final argument, she
asked him why; he said he had thought she'd
"love" him, but that wasn't it; she said he hadn't
married any of the sluts he could have had; no, it
was because she was struggling to rise, and he
admitted it; because he was a sadist and want-
ed to destroy that.

I think this is also an important question. Was it only either/or for her at the end? In a way, you might say her actions were as deliberate as Eddie's

My take on it is much simpler. With Cheryl, I feel his real motive was to gain some kind of validation, to comfort him from the anxiety of all his growing internal contradictions, while on the other hand dragging her down to his level, to validate his pitiful state even more.

However, she chose to end her life rather than join him in his slimy philosophical hell-hole.

A great response to an insightful question.

Beautifully articulated.
I love the thought of Quentin and Cheryl as a couple.

For the same reason that lonely people get lap dogs, someone temporarily elevated above her status will be fulfilling that function. A mental slave. Depraved people like to have those. Look at the promotion policies at government organizations...

The first time I read AS I was very young so I identified with Cheryl so much! You nailed it Scott. Cheryl was young, naïve, with a heroic soul. She thought she married a hero and her disillusionment when she realized her mistake was too much for her to handle. I cried when she killed herself. The death of innocence.

Yes, a good (if you can call it that) example of an emotional abuser. You don't necessarily need fists to attempt to control a spouse and boost ones ego while covering up insecurity.

If people were taught to recognize cognitive dissonance and how to deal with it (usually not make the easiest, obvious choice,) there would be fewer problems for the individual...and, by extension, society.

No reason it couldn't start in kindergarten...but that would be directly opposed to the goals of public and private education.

Compared to Dagny, Jim knew he was a joke and when he started getting external validation from Cheryl, he felt validated. Individuals do not need external validation. They know their value.

safe travels!

K, I'm at the Chicago airport heading home today. I will post as soon as I get home, consult AS, and get my thoughts together. For once I won't be commenting off the cuff!

thanks for posting mamaemma! you have not yet expressed your theory about James destroying Cheryl. I am interested to read your analysis. From my perspective, James is so delusional that I cannot credit him with the power to hold that over her. (juxtapose Toohey over Katie, Keating). The end of her chapter was something she was in complete control over. I don't want to give James the credit -where he could not produce, he likewise never held the power to destroy on his own.

"A [second-hander] is one who regards the consciousness of other men as superior to his own and to the facts of reality. It is to a [second-hander] that the moral appraisal of himself by others is a primary concern which supersedes truth, facts, reason, logic. The disapproval of others is so shatteringly terrifying to him that nothing can withstand its impact within his consciousness; thus he would deny the evidence of his own eyes and invalidate his own consciousness for the sake of any stray charlatan’s moral sanction. It is only a [second-hander] who could conceive of such absurdity as hoping to win an intellectual argument by hinting: “But people won’t like you!” The Virtue of Selfishness

classic second handing. He needed to mold her to build him up.

I found Jim's interaction with Cherryl to be the most disgusting look at a looter, tied with the account of the woman at the motor plan who self-righteously made people beg her for their own money.

Jim sickly wanted Cherryl to feel a little out of place, as if she didn't belong with his better class of people and she was there only by his wonderful virtue of his overlooking the fact she was beneath him. He was an evil sick puppy

No doubt.

Great analysis Scott.

I would also add that neither one of them could have articulated their reasons.
In Cheryl's case she was projecting on Jim so what she would say does not directly apply to him.
In Jim's case his insecurity and ego would prevent him from seeing his real reasons, and therefore not be able to articulate them.