Only one thing that I know of that can bring you that far down. One thing that will null & void every accomplishment you've ever made. Guilt. Especially unearned guilt. When every accomplishment ranks just as high as every failure as more proof of your own guilt. You know it's wrong. You know it's f#%$&ed up, but you don't know why. You try to protect others from your faults but you can't differentiate between your good qualities and your bad. Between what you have done to them and what they have done to you. You are a sucker because you trust others opinions before you'll trust your own. And when that goes bad.... guilt.

I wasn't at rock bottom when I read atlas shrugged but I never went back.

MichaelA: Yes indeed, a terrible truth.
And I would add to your statement, "...using them as baby factories and cannon fodder" -and as voting machines.

Without knowing John Galt was real she would have thought James and his cronies were untouchable.

MikeM: Well stated.
And the world marches on in its socialist-collectivist triumphs little-by-little as it destroys freedom while men and nations fail to recognize its evil.

My take on her death (after 3 readings of the book) is that she was left with the impression that the whole world was turning into the evil that Jim Taggart represented. Her last thoughts concluded that even Dagny, the most powerful and truthful person she knew, was going to be swallowed up and destroyed by this world and Cheryl simply could not bring herself to try to survive in such a world.

Rich: I believe that this is the crux of the matter.
As you state, "...where James was respected and Dagny looked down on."
How could Cheryl trust herself to fight in a world controlled by Taggarts and his other powerful cronies when she had been so blind, so wrong...

Rand showed us how easy it was to fall into blind belief, hero worship without basis, failure to question. Cheryl represented the everyday common person of limited experience and knowledge. She had no defenses against the evils which she found herself living amongst. She was by no means prepared emotionally or intellectually.

When the Beast raised its head and she saw it for the first time... and that she had been living in its belly as it survived off her... Then self-immolation may have been her only recourse.

I also related to them. But the Cheryl character was so personal and she woke me up and it did change my life. I decided not to give up like she did and I knew and still do that there are good people everywhere. Much more than bad. The moochers and looters are just a lot louder. And I create my own little world of goodness, knowledge and love and laughter.

I have also thought of another character in a differ-
ent novel who has a certain similarity: Catherine
Halsey in The Fountainhead. Catherine is also
destroyed by the most evil villain in the novel, Ells-
worth Toohey. Wanting to be a virtuous person, but mistaking altruism for virtue and selfishness
for evil, she finds herself becoming dishonest,
hypocritical, nasty, and "selfish" (in a worse way
than she had expected); and Toohey tells her
that she has just made the "most selfish speech" he has heard in his life. "To hell with
everybody, as long as I'm virtuous," he des-
cribes her attitude. When he gets done with her,
she looks as if she has "been run over by a
tank." And when Peter Keating jilts her, that
takes the last prop from under her. However, I
don't want to equate the two. I have much more
respect for Cherryl; at least, when she finds her
idol going against her values, it is he whom she
denounces, rather than her values.--I feel real
pity for Catherine, but also a certain amount of
contempt (at least, for the way she has become
in her last appearance, in the scene with Keat-
ing). I feel respect for Cherryl, and sympathy
for her in her distress.

Owen Kellogg and Eddie Willers have always represented the "everyday" Objectivist to me. You don't have to be Hank or Dagny. Just do what you do to the best of your ability and don't let anyone else take the credit for your work.

Excellent points Jan.

That's an interesting perspective. +1

Puzzlelady: Excellent summary!

I would like to add one observation that I think has been missed in the discussion: The roles in Victorian upper class life were that the husband dealt with 'reality' but the wife did not. A woman was supposed to be raised to be an Innocent, someone who has never had to deal with harsh reality. Her function, with respect to her husband, was that she was supposed to represent a Safe Harbor. She was someone who would always stick up for him and side with his views...because all she knew of the world was what he told her and therefore his perspective was hers as well. She was a perpetual child to his adult.

These archetypes, already quite prevalent and well established in our society, outline the roles that James wanted himself and Cheryl to play - and which Cheryl initially played to perfection. James' ego flourished under this attention, which thought him greater than his sister. When Cheryl's own personal growth and increased maturity and knowledge shattered the roles, James lashed out and Cheryl's nascent strength was destroyed.

Tragedy.

Jan

It represents the death of innocence to me. And of regular people who are worker bees and innocent who feel totally helpless in resolving the conflict of living in an evil world. I related so much to Cheryl and I still do. It may seem emotional, but some of us Objectivists do not possess all of the answers and are not the giant "doers" and "producers" of the world.

Good for you!
Being in business with its ups and downs and dealing with various forms of avarice there were many times I needed to re-read something by Rand to keep me from becoming derailed.

I read an article online that pointed out that Cheryl got an entire chapter in the book. She is definitely one of the more important "minor" characters. That was a great line!

I think you are right. She hadn't developed the strength of mind yet like the strikers. I hadn't thought that she may have believed Dagny was also doomed. In her state of mind she may have felt James and his cronies couldn't be stopped. She had no way of knowing what was going on with Galt and the others. Great points.

Thinking about when Cheryl first met James, if someone had told her Dagny was the brains behind Taggert TransContinental, I wonder if she could have been convinced it was true? I think she had to live it and find out on her own.

Perhaps it was to underscore the utter evil of Jim
Taggart and others like him. If she had gotten a
divorce and a big settlement, the evil might not
have impressed the reader as being so serious.
Cherryl thought that Dagny, also, was doomed.
A person without such an explicit philosophy
like the strikers, might not have the strength to
survive that situation .

I agree with that completely. One of the first things I'd do if I had to trim the plot to fit a movie is remove Cheryl entirely. (The downside of that is that Dagny wouldn't get to deliver the line "I'm the man.")

Good point. By helping James she was hurting Dagny.