IN A RECENT ARTICLE in this Journal, Max E. Fletcher attempts accomplish two things: (a) demonstrate that Harriet Martineau and Ayn Rand, writing 150 years apart, have both devoted themselves using fiction as a vehicle for simplifying and conveying the esoteric theories of laissez-faire economics the reading public; and (b) provide some explanation of the content of Martineau's and Rand's work. Fletcher's thesis is that both these writers had the same purpose or mission, i.e., to convert their reading publics a firm belief in the principles of a self-regulating market system (1). Fletcher then goes on state that, in pursuit of their common purpose, Martineau and Rand reverse the intention of most great novelists create first a work of art, and only secondarily an educational tract. The novels of Martineau and Rand, Fletcher claims, primarily sugar coatings for tracts (2). Perhaps Mr. Fletcher should have concentrated on interpreting the work and purposes of Harriet Martineau. Tn this instance his evidence is persuasive, it is supported by Martineau's autobiographical writing (which Fletcher has troubled himself include), and there are doubtless very few active Martineau scholars today take issue with him. Such is not the case, however, with the work and purposes of Ayn Rand. Fletcher's central thesis, as regards Ayn Rand, is completely mistaken; it is not supported by evidence (even by Fletcher!); it is contradicted by Miss Rand's own autobiographical writing (which Fletcher has not troubled himself include); and there are, today, many active Ayn Rand scholars, one of whom, on the basis of his article, Fletcher evidently is not.