Are Ayn Rand’s Characters Unrealistic?

From left to right: Dominique in the movie version of The Fountainhead, Dagny Taggart in the movie version of Atlas Shrugged, Howard Roark in the movie version of The Fountainhead, Kira Argunova in the movie version of We the Living.

If you are familiar with Rand’s work, you might have heard the phrase “Randian hero” before. This is a phrase often used to describe not only Rand’s characters but also people who exhibit some of the main traits found in Rand’s heroes: productiveness, high intelligence, a strong moral compass, and rationality, among others.

However, many believe that the characters created by Rand are unrealistic, and argue that this works against her when it comes to getting more readers of her works or proponents of Objectivism (the philosophy she presented in her books.)

In fact, I also had a similar reaction to her characters when I first read her novels, particularly Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead (the characters in her novel We the Living are a little different.)

However, after reading both of these novels twice and spending more than a decade studying Rand’s philosophy, I have come to gain a much more comprehensive view of the issue.

Now, the fact that her characters are “unrealistic” isn’t exactly the problem, after all, people love wizards, superheroes, and other mystical geniuses. So why are Rand’s characters critiqued so much? Because of what Rand’s characters represent within the context of her novels.

Specifically, people think the way Rand’s characters behave doesn’t work in favor of Rand’s own argument—and she makes plenty of arguments in her novels. This is a view held by both opposers of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism and also by her supporters, but for different reasons, of course.

Needless to say, there are many reasons why people might dislike Rand’s characters, including personal taste, but today we’ll focus on the reasons why they’re considered unrealistic.

Note: This article might contain Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead spoilers.

Why Ayn Rand’s Haters Dislike Her Characters

To begin with, the heroes in Ayn Rand’s novels present a facade of perfectionism and don’t really sound like “normal people.” By this, I mean that they often say very few words, they don’t seem to lose their temper, they don’t make mistakes and they never seem to ramble or talk about trivial things that regular people talk about. In the same way, they do not exhibit other negative traits that most humans grapple with like self-doubt, indecision, and jealousy.

So opposers of Rand’s philosophy use this as an argument to show that Ayn Rand does not understand human nature. Because if she can’t even write real human characters then she doesn’t understand humans, which means her philosophy is also not good for humans, right? They also argue that the fact that Rand’s characters come across as cold and calculating shows that Rand’s philosophy is cold, and calculating as well, and doesn’t take human emotion into account. However, what they consider “cold and calculating” just means that they are smart and even-tempered, which should be considered positive traits.

Why Some Rand Supporters Also Dislike Her Characters

Yes, even supporters of Rand’s philosophy are bothered by the way Rand’s characters behave, but why? The argument—and this is something I also believed at some point—is that if she had only made the characters more human, aka “vulnerable and flawed” then people would be able to relate to those characters more, and therefore they’d be more open to her philosophy. In summary, some of Rand’s supporters are frustrated because they think she’s turning off potential readers by presenting people in the way she did.

However, here’s something we need to understand: Rand didn’t write characters that people could relate to, Rand wrote characters that people could admire because of their many positive qualities—which ironically it’s why people criticize them.

Now, it is important to mention that there are some people who will question the morality of some of her characters, specifically Dagny and Henry Rearden in Atlas Shrugged because the two engaged in adultery, and this is a perfectly valid issue to raise. However, I have come to understand the issue a little bit better recently, and you have to remember that Henry’s wife was unequivocally evil toward Henry, so it wasn’t exactly like she deserved any sort of respect or consideration from him. If it had been the case that she had some redeemable qualities, but Henry still decided to cheat on her with Dagny because he didn’t have the guts to tell her he no longer loved her, or just because he thought Dagny was attractive, then, naturally, we would have to judge his actions much more differently. But of course, this is the short version of the argument and I’m not trying to convince you of it, because it’s a complicated conversation that can be left for another time.

For now, we’ll focus on their “moral perfection” when it comes to their work ethic, intellectual honesty, productiveness, and rationality.

The Motive Behind Rand’s Writing Choices

I can’t remember the source, but there is a great quote by Ayn Rand where she explains this issue, and it says “I do not write of people as they are, but as they could and should be.”(1)

This means that just because we are not used to seeing people who are highly driven, highly smart, level-headed, logical, objective, confident, and clear of their purpose, that doesn’t mean they cannot exist. Just because most humans are a bundle of character flaws, traumas, fears, and inconsistencies, doesn’t mean that’s how we are supposed to be. If many of us are like that it is because of how we were raised, the culture we grew up in, the education we received, and our own bad choices. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

Even the most flawed of individuals can find redemption by choosing to change and doing something about it. We might never achieve the level of a John Galt or a Dagny Taggart, but that doesn’t mean we can’t get close and therefore be much better off—although some people might actually get to the level of a John Galt, it is not impossible.

Furthermore, people might also become like an “Ayn Rand hero” if they are given the right tools from birth. If you have fairly reasonable parents that encourage you to think and motivate you to do things “by love” instead of by fear, If you have a quality education, and if you make good choices, you could end up becoming a morally admirable adult. This is why it’s so important to promote reason, and rational self-interest—we want more happy, moral, productive individuals, but that can only happen if we challenge the bad ideas that are currently shaping many people’s “destiny.”

There are exceptions on the different journeys to becoming a morally admirable adult, of course. Some people have so much personal vision that they are able to succeed in the world and discover morality on their own even if the odds are against them, one of them being Ayn Rand herself. She was a person who always used her mind and knew how to think, which is what allowed her to see past the communist propaganda of her country and past the irrationality around her.

The Worst Reason People Dislike Ayn Rand’s Characters

Now, we covered a few reasons as to why people dislike Rand’s characters, but there’s another reason I haven’t mentioned yet, and it is the worst one of all. People dislike Rand’s characters not because they think they have too many bad qualities, but because they have too many good qualities. They hate them because they are good!

Think about it, Rand’s characters are productive, intelligent, they have self-esteem, they’re not overly emotional, they have passion, they know what they want, they don’t doubt themselves, they’re not motivated by fear, and they’re not afraid to say no to that which doesn’t serve their purpose, and some people find this offensive. These “too many positive qualities” in one person is considered annoying for some people. This is what Rand’s called “hatred of ‘the good’ for being ‘the good.’’

It’s somewhat related to envy but not quite. For example, there are times we can’t help but feel a little envious of something we don’t have that someone else has and that we’d really like to have. For instance, you might be envious of a person's high sense of self-esteem, but if you’re a mentally healthy person, you don’t wish for that other person to lose their self-esteem just because you don't have it, and you don’t hate them for having it. But hatred of the good for being the good is exactly that, recognizing something is good and hating it anyway. In Rand’s own words:

“This hatred is not resentment against some prescribed view of the good with which one does not agree. . . . Hatred of the good for being the good means hatred of that which one regards as good by one’s own (conscious or subconscious) judgment. It means hatred of a person for possessing a value or virtue one regards as desirable.”(2)

And she gives an example “If a child wants to get good grades in school, but is unable or unwilling to achieve them and begins to hate the children who do, that is hatred of the good.”(3)

And we see this phenomenon everywhere, we see it in the media and culture, in the demonizing of billionaires, businessmen, producers, and beautiful celebrities. It even happens to the members of our own family. The ones who are ambitious and intelligent sometimes get picked on and demeaned by the rest of the family because that person’s desire for greatness makes the rest of the family feel inadequate. To understand this phenomenon, I invite you to read Rand’s essay “The Age of Envy.”

Do Ayn Rand’s Characters Work in Her Favor or Against her?

This is actually the wrong question to ask, or rather it’s more important to understand that Rand didn’t create these characters for the enjoyment of us the reader. She, true to her selfish self, created the characters for her own sake. In fact, she often said that one of her goals in Atlas Shrugged was to create the ideal man, and John Galt was the result.

But, to answer the initial question anyway, I believe that Rand's characters do work in her favor. And by that, I mean that they work in favor of winning us over to the ideas—those who are open to them. Why? Here are a few reasons:

1. Because they stand out. The fact that Rand’s characters are so different from other characters is what makes them memorable.

2. They make you think. I.E: I often ask myself how they can act so rationally in certain situations that many other people would react in an emotional way. The behavior of her characters makes you ask questions about your own behavior and that of those around you. And upon further thought you discover she was onto something; just because irrationality is the norm, it doesn’t mean it should be.

3. You can’t help but look up to them, which is a source of inspiration. And looking up to them, makes you want to learn more about what moves them. It makes you wonder what the author stands for and why she is painting these “selfish” people in a favorable light, even though selfishness is commonly looked down on. Could it be that selfishness might be a good thing?

That’s how the characters get you hooked and open you up to philosophy.

So, to answer the main question, are Ayn Rand’s characters unrealistic? Yes. They are unrealistic in the sense that they don’t resemble the type of people we interact with on an everyday basis, but this is what makes them so important. Rand’s characters present a picture of what is possible, human as they “could and should be,” and this is something that should be celebrated, not looked down on.

This article is also available as a video discussion:

References:

[1] Rand, A. “To Frank Lloyd Wright” 14 May. 1944. Letters of Ayn Rand Ed.Michale S. Berliner. p.113.

[2] Rand, A., “The Age of Envy” 1999. Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, p.152.

[3] Rand, A., “The Age of Envy” 1999. Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, p.152.