|
|
General Discussion
Started by Vrtra Theory at 11-19-2007 4:23 PM. Topic has 7 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 11-19-2007, 4:23 PM
|
Vrtra Theory
Joined on 11-20-2007
Posts 1
|
Likeability of Rand's "heroes"?
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all, I have some comments and a question about Rand's fiction that I was hoping someone could answer for me.
As much as I love Fountainhead and Atlas, it seems to me that they intentionally avoid describing real people. All of these characters seem to fall into one of three categories: either you're a cold, impersonal visionary, a bumbling idiot, or a failure, actively destroying the fabric of humanity (either without thinking, like Jim Taggart, or with full knowledge, like Ellsworth Toohey).
I guess my question is, as compelling as Rand's vision of strength and competence is, how can anyone actually strive to be like Howard Roark or Hank Rearden? I get that she wants to place the spotlight on the self-worth, pride, and independence of these characters, but if I met them in real life, I'd probably think they were assholes! Dominique is much the same. I think Dagny is probably the only hero(ine) that's likeable, and that's marginal.
I guess I find it interesting that someone like me doesn't exist in Rand's universes. I definitely have some Objectivist leanings, but I'm on good terms with both of my parents (they haven't conveniently died, or become obvious manipulators, like the parents portrayed by Rand). I love my work, but I'm not rude to other people in my department just because they need things explained more than once. I have friends that I enjoy spending time with, but I don't know or care what they do for a living or how good they are at it.
For people who take Objectivism seriously, is Rand's fiction taken simply as hyperbole, or am I missing some easy way to distinguish between what Rand considered essential to her heroes and what was behavior forced on them by an "imperfect" world?
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
11-20-2007, 10:05 AM
|
Josh
Joined on 10-29-2006
Posts 67
|
Re: Likeability of Rand's "heroes"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Otani is probably the most studied up on rand's philosophy that I've seen on this board. I'm sure if he gets a chance he would answer your questions.
I actually thought John Galt was a pretty likeable character. Throughout the story he is just "one of the guys" working at the railroad station. And Francisco is (although he's pretending) this socialite/playboy type. But even his genuine character is pretty great. I have friends similar to him (not with rich parents, just dangerously curious and always ready to work).
It's funny how some people perceive Rand's characters as cold and uncaring. I got the vibe they are some of the most passionate characters I've ever read about. They are just very selfish with their emotions and don't care to share them with people who don't understand them.
That's just my take.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2007, 1:17 PM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
Re: Likeability of Rand's "heroes"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| As much as I love Fountainhead and Atlas, it seems to me that they intentionally avoid describing real people. All of these characters seem to fall into one of three categories: either you're a cold, impersonal visionary, a bumbling idiot, or a failure, actively destroying the fabric of humanity (either without thinking, like Jim Taggart, or with full knowledge, like Ellsworth Toohey).
I guess my question is, as compelling as Rand's vision of strength and competence is, how can anyone actually strive to be like Howard Roark or Hank Rearden? I get that she wants to place the spotlight on the self-worth, pride, and independence of these characters, but if I met them in real life, I'd probably think they were assholes! Dominique is much the same. I think Dagny is probably the only hero(ine) that's likeable, and that's marginal. |
|
You aren’t the only one to make this observation. Rand is criticized for having undeveloped and static characters. They have no humor. They have no shades of gray. They are either flawed or perfect, even though some may be a little more perfect than others. In We the Living, which some people say is not one of her best works, I thought the lead character was more believable. Rand also wrote some short stories, in The Early Ayn Rand, which actually had some humor and dynamic characters. But The Fountainhead and Atlas were more serious and focused on the philosophy. The characters were just tools to advance her message.
Her goal, she said, was to create heroes, ideal humans. She didn’t seem to have that in her own life. Her husband allowed himself to be dominated by her. Her lover, Nathaniel Branden, was a nerd who also could not stand up to her very well. Her life was kind’a dull. Her excitement, then, came from her fiction, where she could create the people she could admire. It was her escape, but she maintained such people were possible.
She had her problems with people. She didn’t really mix well with others. She wasn’t as approachable as was Nathaniel and Barbara. Her followers put her on a pedestal. Yes, she accomplished much and overcame obstacles, but she was not really a people person. There was some coldness in her and, thus, in her characters, and a little intolerance in her philosophy.
Bis bald,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2007, 3:54 AM
|
Andy_X69
Joined on 12-15-2005
Posts 75
|
Re: Likeability of Rand's "heroes"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You do not have to be a carbon copy of any of Ayn Rand's characters.
Just remember, Rand deliberately wrote romantic fiction. Her characters were representations of ideas, not portrayals of real people.
Also, "cold" and "impersonal" are not entirely correct. Roark, Dominique, Dagny etc all feel very intense emotions. The basic point with making these characters not be so sociable is, again, mostly for dramatic purposes, to heighten the contrast between themselves and others. Rand's ideas (taken independently of the fiction) actually support benevolence, kindness and all the warm and fuzzy stuff (see David Kelley's "Unrugged Individualism").
Not all Objectivists are carbon-copies of the books. I for one have Roarkian independence of mind, but I express it more aggressively, and I have a very large amount of Dominique-like pessimism about the social world. So my personality is not absolutely "free of all pain" (indeed not even Howard Roark's was... when there was pain, it "only went down to a certain point"). But even Rand's own personality was significantly darker than John Galt's (see "The Passion of Ayn Rand" by Barbara Branden).
So trust me, take the books with a grain of salt. Read the philosophy, take those principles, and apply them to your own life, and dont let any dogmatic Randroids tell you to take up smoking (or something else) in order to "be a better Rand fan."
The best thing you can do, certainly according to Rand, is to take no authority above your own judgement of the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
12-27-2007, 5:26 PM
|
Kadmus468
Joined on 12-28-2007
Posts 1
|
Re: Likeability of Rand's "heroes"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hank Reardon poops. It's true. So did Miss Taggart and John Galt. Rand didn't talk about that because those character's were romaticized versions of concepts. She wrote of man as he "ought" to be, not as he is (or even can be). Hank, Dagney, and John are bigger than life as people. No man is a perfect individual. We, at times, succumb to our baser emotions. We sometimes fail to reason and require cognetive assistance. Yet in these three characters (Hank and Dagney especially because I can relate to them -- John Galt is just too perfect for me), we see reflections of our better selves. But we also see uncompromising people that would be difficult to get along with. I think Rand did this intentially to prove a point.
Rand was celebrating achievement. Real human achievement. Reardon Metal and The John Galt Line were real achievements. So, essentially, Rand was celebrating performance and pride is the reward for performance. But she was also showing us a trap. And that is the trap of managing perceptions. In Rand's world (as in mine) Success = Performance. Likeability is not an issue because it's not peformance (or achievement). Likeability is a perception. It cannot be measured. It can change on a whim. Yet many of us go through life with the equation that Success = Performance + Perception. People worry about how others will feel about their achievement or lack-thereof. We worry that, "I have a great job but nobody will know it if I don't drive a BMW," or some nonsense like this. Or we worry that, "This is the best decision for the long term health of the company but the stock is going to take a hit tomorrow... what should I do?" This is a trap and it is a trap that Rand all but explains. Reardon, Taggart, and Galt are neither likeable or unlikable because that shouldn't matter in terms of human achievement.
Here's a for instance that might help. Do you like Bill Gates? Does that matter to you when assessing whether to buy Windows or Mac? Should it? Do you think Bill Gates cares if you like him? Should he? Or, should Bill Gates be worried about building the best computer operating system he possibibly can? Should he focus on Success = Performance (achievement) or should he focus on Success = Performance + Perceptions? Does that mean he can or cannot be polite in social settings? Before you answer, notice that Reardon was only blunt with people who did not wish to face reality and the objective respect the head of his union had for Reardon meant more to him than the mindless complements or insults he received from the moochers and looters.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
01-11-2008, 10:09 PM
|
marantaz
Joined on 01-10-2008
Posts 19
|
Re: Likeability of Rand's "heroes"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would only add that I think Rand wrote her characters with a bit of her own personality; as was stated before, she was not a people person (something I've heard quite often about myself, and I've always been kind of proud of that, although I lack the other qualities she admired considerably) and perhaps it's that aspect of Rands personaliity that she liked best about herself. A person who is confident and secure in themself would not have any need or desire to be liked, only that their right to exist be respected.
I think she understood her characters would not be viewed as people the reader might actually want to get to know, or sit and have a beer with; she gave hints as to how they might spend their daily lives, but by not dwelling on it, she allows the reader to come to that realization on their own.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
04-02-2008, 6:05 PM
|
Kraig
Joined on 04-03-2008
Posts 3
|
Re: Likeability of Rand's "heroes"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well first of all, this is my first post here, I am happy to
have found this forum. I have just recently finished reading Atlas
Shrugged, my first exposure to anything by Ayn Rand, and I found it to be one
of the most thought provoking books I have ever read.
I would like to say that I think it is a huge understatement that Rand's
characters and heroes in Atlas Shrugged are either impossibly perfect or
hopelessly flawed. What I found when reading was that the book divides
all characters into two camps that are in a philosophical war with each other -
the looters/moochers vs. the objectionists. All characters fit into one
or the other during the course of the book, at least one or two change sides
during the book and nearly all of them vary greatly in terms of both their
dedication to their beliefs, as well as their ability to successfully live by
their beliefs.
On the Objectionist side we have Dagny Taggart, Hank Rearden, Ellis Wyatt,
Eddie Willars, John Galt as well as many others. John Galt is the embodiment
of pure objectionism, he has no flaws, and he has no contradictions in his
moral code - if any character in the book is “too perfect”, it is him, but let’s
look at some of the others. Hank Rearden is far from perfect in most of
the book; his character is the perfect demonstration of a contradiction of
moral ethics, and the consequences of those contradictions. On one side
he has chosen to work on his own terms, honestly and selfishly. On the other
side, the "social" side, he has chosen to abandon his own convictions
and act by the standards of society, and the standards of his wife. This contradiction
caused him to be unhappy for most of his life, it caused him to condemn Dagny's
sexuality when he really wished to praise it, it left him stuck in a public
affair when he should have had an honorable wife that he could love. Look
at Eddie Willars, who perhaps reached the purest essence of an objectionist's
morality, but whose mind and ability could not take him nearly as far as people
like Francisco D'Anconia or Hank Rearden, let alone John Galt. This left
him alone in the middle of nowhere, probably to die - and it was specifically
his inability to fix the train's engine that left him there.
Now let’s look at some of the other side, the looters and the moochers.
These characters are not all one dimensionally and hopelessly flawed, pathetic
human beings. Look at Dr. Robert Stadler, someone whose mind was perhaps
only rivaled by John Galt's. His mind was great; his moral code was his
downfall. Through most of the book, I was not sure which side Stadler
would end up on. It was clear that he was stuck in the middle of a whole
group of looters, but there was always a part of his thinking that despised
them - he was just too much of a coward to do anything about it. He
lacked the moral code that would force him to use his mind to live off of his
own means - and his mind was certainly one of the most capable of doing
this. Look at the "Wet Nurse", this guy slowly but without any
doubt completely switched camps before his death. This switch did not
leave him in some unrealistic ideal situation where all of his problems were
solved by the power of his mind and the power of objectionism, it left him dead
while had he remained a looter he probably could have lived much longer.
There was even another character, I can't remember his name, but he was usually
with the Wesly Mouch / Jim Taggart group. While the other looters were
lying to each other saying it was all for the "public good", this guy
bluntly said they were leading the people into slavery. His mind was able
to fully understand what was happening, but he lacked to the moral code to
understand why he should not do it.
These are just the characters I thought of off the top of my head, but I just
wanted to point out the greatly different levels of "perfection" and
"flaws" in the characters. I found many of them to be quite
likeable, and they seemed to be quite human.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
04-19-2008, 1:44 PM
|
solo
Joined on 08-08-2007
Posts 16
|
Re: Likeability of Rand's "heroes"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would have to agree that Rand's heroes play as aloof and somewhat cold, but existing in a social enviroment so completely and openly hostile to their values they are certainly not going to be very forthcoming or open to others. Therefore, this should be taken as a believable response to their environment, and not characteristic of their personalities. I do not think that being a high achiever is any excuse for being disrespectful to others. A life valuing person will seek high achievement, and by the same token, will be kind and benevolently inclined toward others. It's just in this particular environment, there wasn't much about other people to respect or motivate benevolence or kindness.
The problem I have with Rand's presentation of her heroes, and villians also, is that she allows the reader to see them mostly from the outside, ie. she does not go into their heads much and allow the reader to see their inner thoughts and emotions. Given that the goal of her writing was to present the ideal man, it seems strange to me that she would want to keep so much distance between them and the reader as this prevents the very presentation she seeks.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Idea... » General Discuss... » Likeability of Rand's "heroes"?
|
|
|
|