Response to Max's Comment

I completely disagree with Max. I do not find the character of John Galt to be unbelievable or impractical. In fact, I find it to be one of the most practical things that Rand could have chosen to done with the novel. There was an air of uncertainty at any mention of Galt's name before he was officially introduced as a character. Who is John Galt? People hated hearing those very words because of the uncertainty it brought. Dagny even chose to name her line John Galt because of that uncertainty. His introduction as a human being and not as a simple idea made the story much more tangible. The fact that Dagny was able to meet the man whom she named her line after, without even knowing he existed was fascinating. She was literally able to put a face to the name that she had no clue about for so long.
     Galt's presence, I believe, allows Dagny and even the reader to believe that there is a sense of hope left. Though he may not be the hope Dagny was looking for his existence- his creation of the motor- allows the reader to feel as if they can grasp the hope that is left in the palm of their hands. Before, where the hope was s far away, it felt as if it was time to give up. I do agree with Max on the point that this whole terrain he has with people that believe his ideals is slightly unrealistic. Can someone really get away with owning so much land and having no unwanted human discovering it? I do not think so. This concept of a land protected by unreachable grounds and some reflected image seem too fake for no one to discover it. The way in which they live also seems to utopian to be true. In twelve years there have been no disagrees when there are about 20 something people there. There is no way 20 people could not argue gravely once in twenty years. Nonetheless, the utopia is beautiful to read about. It is nice to read about these pleasure the characters are experiencing.
- Talia Akerman