The Bad Nature Of Bad Characters

[A.A]

I have always wondered about that. Why is the majority of the nagative characters on AR`s books described as eternally evil (I mean characters such as Jim Tagart or Simon Preetchet or Lillian)? The majority of the people I know have socialist tendencies and/or post-modernist tendencies, and in my evaluation the majority of those are good intelligent people with a sense of life who wrong because they fail to see the real alternative. Why do they need to read a book that antagonizes them and makes them think that the author is fighting them instead of speaking to them and halp them understand the nature of real evil people?

I don’t mean the “Elsworth Toohi”s; they are supposed to be pure evil. But what about the rest of them? Why not just show how bed premises lead to terrible results, even if the intention is good?

Edit: As communicated through PM by the author, the modifier "eternally" in the phrase "..described as eternally evil.." above was meant to be internally. -Felipe

Edited April 10, 2005 by Felipe

[HaloNoble6]

I'm not sure what you mean by "why [are] the majority of the negative characters [in] AR's books described as eternally evil." Off-hand it seems like you have the perception that, once an individual is deemed immoral with respect to a particular act, they are immoral (evil) for the entirety of their life, irrespective of the subsequent actions they take. Correct me if I'm wrong in assessing the point you're contending.

If you've read Atlas, you'll notice that characters which are depicted as evil throughout the entirety of the book have acted immorally throughout the entirety of the book, while some characters, like Jim Taggart's wife Cheryl or Hank's Wet Nurse, whom were initially wrong in their ideas, took actions later on in the book that redeemed their lives and revoked the label of "evil" from their characters.

If it is your perception that, once a person commits an immoral act, they are considered immoral for the entirety of their life, I suggest you think about the validity of this impression. The moral assessment of an individual's character is based on the entirety of the actions they've taken in their life, but, if they've committed errors in the past, they can and should take corrective actions which may allow us to deem their person as good in the future. In this sense I hope I've illuminated how you're mistaken in thinking that people who can be considered evil today cannot take actions tomorrow so that they can be considered good people.

So, as to your friends who you say are "good intelligent people" but whom advocate wrong ideas, I suggest you ask yourself why you consider them good inspite of the fact that they advocate wrong ideas and why you think they would be antagonized by AR's writings. If, as you say, they are "good" (based on a rationally-based moral standard) but they are just honestly mistaken (which is very common with young people), then I actually don't think they would be antagonized by an honest, clear presentation of the right ideas. However, if they are not just "honestly mistaken" but are hardcore advocates of socialism or whatever, they will be antagonized by the truth and I wonder about how you arrived at the assessment that they are "good people."

[Lancifer]

Felipe, I definitely agree with you on this point. Further more, Rand wasn’t labeling all people with a socialist tilt as eternally evil. Those characters, as Felipe stated, proved to immoral time and time again, regardless of how many opportunities they had to amend their thinking and ways. The purpose of such characters is to provide an antagonist and contrast to the heroic. Jim Taggart represented the antithesis of rationality through out Atlas Shrugged, thereby fulfilling the role as a villain or antagonist. Portraying him as such was necessary, in a literary sense, to show the alternative to collectivism.

[HaloNoble6]

Considering now that you meant "internally" rather than "eternally," perhaps you can elaborate on what you mean by "internally." Is it something like "inherently" or "naturally" or "intrinsically?" I'll wait to respond until you've further clarified.

[A.A]

Thank you. I will now try and explain myself.

I am assuming that the books written by AR were written with the purpose of reaching out to innocent people, who support mistaken philosophies due to errors. I think the best example of a character that description applies to is Andrey from “We The Living” who was a Communist, and still a good person. That was Miss Rand`s first book, if I am not mistaken. But in Atlas Shrugged, almost all the bad characters (with the exception of the “wet nurse”; Sheryl isn’t a good example because she has the right morals and just doesn’t apply them to the right person) that advocate some sort of Socialism or Altruism are inherently evil.

Now, we all know that the vast majority of human beings are ignorant of the mere possibility of a consistent selfish, capitalist position. That is one of the reasons miss Rand was so innovative; she showed a new philosophy of reason, one that showed selfishness and Capitalism as good things, and explained why; but for the intelligent person, the person who goes to academy and learns all the bad ideas, Rand`s ideas are still very novel.

But when that person reads the novel, he/she sees that almost every bad character in it is inherently evil; beyond correction, so to speak. The battle between good and evil, which is described in that book, is not just a battle between ideas (or between ideas and non-ideas, as one may put it); it is also a battle between good people and evil people. And in that battle, almost every person who advocates an evil idea is inherently evil in his character as well.

Now, how will an intelligent, innocent reader who holds contradicting opinions react to this? I think there will be a minority that will understand the purpose of the book; the people that consist of that minority are today’s Objectivists (or students of Objectivism etc.). But many people who read it, and have the potential of understanding Objectivism, will leave the book as soon as they see that people who speak the language that they got everywhere when they grew up are depicted as evil; the students who read that their philosophy professor, a real authority-figure in their eyes, is not just mistaken but rather an evil man inside who tries to destroy their brain, they might not be able to “take it”. And I wonder if the purpose of the book- showing the horrible final results that an advocating of bad ideas might have- could be achieved by different means than those described above.

And, believe it or not, despite the lengthy post, this is just a suggestion. I am not yet certain of its validity myself. But it is worth thinking about.

[A.A]

Felipe, I definitely agree with you on this point. Further more, Rand wasn’t labeling all people with a socialist tilt as eternally evil. Those characters, as Felipe stated, proved to immoral time and time again, regardless of how many opportunities they had to amend their thinking and ways. The purpose of such characters is to provide an antagonist and contrast to the heroic. Jim Taggart represented the antithesis of rationality through out Atlas Shrugged, thereby fulfilling the role as a villain or antagonist. Portraying him as such was necessary, in a literary sense, to show the alternative to collectivism.

I take back my use of Jim Taggart as an example, and I never meant to imply that there shouldn’t be villains in AS. My question is: why is there only one character who does not hold a basically Objectivist view of life and who is not inherently evil? Is it not damaging to the final purpose of the book?

[Lancifer]

The entirety of AS was used as a platform to set two ways of thinking against each other. Collectivism and Objectivism. I agree that the book reaches out to people that advocate self defeating philosophies, but the book was only pitting Collectivism and Individualism against each other. Any other way thinking would not have fit into the over all theme of the book. That being said, the book has already been written, questioning whether or not there was a better way to go about the objective is irrelevant. My personal opinion, I think that the book had to demonstrate the full honesty of the destructiveness that collectivism breeds. Anything less would have been ineffectual.

[JMeganSnow]

I take back my use of Jim Taggart as an example, and I never meant to imply that there shouldn’t be villains in AS. My question is: why is there only one character who does not hold a basically Objectivist view of life and who is not inherently evil? Is it not damaging to the final purpose of the book?

Which character do you mean? There are MANY characters in Atlas Shrugged with mixed premises (in fact, almost all of the characters have SOME kind of erroneous premise).

Romantic Realism, Ayn Rand's selected artistic style, requires tremendous stylization. The villians are VILLIANS, and EVIL, the heros are HEROS and GOOD.

It has been my personal experience that people still retaining some vestiges of rationality (specifically, understanding that the purpose of art is to represent, not preach) are not threatened by the villians in AS, they find them as helpful as the heroes.

Ayn Rand mentions this in the Romantic Manifesto (paraphrasing), as part of the function of art; that it's immensely difficult to hold in your mind all at once everything you think about what a good human being should be, and, when confronted with a difficult choice, it can be almost impossible to put everything together into a whole. However, a person who has read, say, The Fountainhead, and holds in his mind this concrete abstraction of what a hero SHOULD be and how he SHOULD act can proceed simply by asking themselves, "what would Howard Roark do?" Instantly, all the cylinders (metaphorically) line up and the answer is presented to them by the functions of their subconscious.

The villians can serve the same purpose; when confronted with an egregious, sneering evil that one cannot easily identify or counter, I find myself suddenly recalling Mr. Thompsons repeated, "But we don't have to go to extremes . . ." and BINGO I know EXACTLY what's wrong with a statement and WHY it's wrong.

I have learned that anyone that takes umbrage at Ayn Rand's "tone" or whines "people aren't really like that" is not going to suddenly suffer a change of heart and become an Objectivist. We (and I use this term, I hope, appropriately) do not waste our lives trying to figure out what compromises are necessary to lift everyone to the mountaintop. If we are concerned with other people at all, we simply wish the bars that prevent them from rising if they so choose to be removed. After all, these same bars are in OUR way.

[JMeganSnow]

The entirety of AS was used as a platform to set two ways of thinking against each other. Collectivism and Objectivism.

Altruism and Objectivism.

[Lancifer]

Altruism and Objectivism.

Thank you for the correction. That was a distinction I shouldn't have missed. My mistake.

[softwareNerd]

I am assuming that the books written by AR were written with the purpose of reaching out to innocent people, who support mistaken philosophies due to errors.

A.A, you might be right if you assume this was her goal.

If Ayn Rand's wrote her novels primarily to convert people to Objectivism, she would probably have done them differently. However, she indicated that it worked the other way around: she had to discover and refine her philosophy in order to be able to write her novels.

In the essay, "The Goal of My Writing" (The Romantic Manifesto), she wrote:

"Let me stress this: my purpose is not the philosophical enlightenment of her readers..." (Italics in original.)

[A.A]

I have learned that anyone that takes umbrage at Ayn Rand's "tone" or whines "people aren't really like that" is not going to suddenly suffer a change of heart and become an Objectivist.  We (and I use this term, I hope, appropriately) do not waste our lives trying to figure out what compromises are necessary to lift everyone to the mountaintop.  If we are concerned with other people at all, we simply wish the bars that prevent them from rising if they so choose to be removed. 

(Bold mine) Well, I guess the question is whether the problem I raised is at the heart of the Objectivist philosophy (meaning that had AR written the books closer to the way I "suggested", it would have changed the content of Objectivism), or that it is merely a "tactical" question. If it is the former, I understand why you would call that "compromise", and it’s not what I meant. If it’s the latter, I think it’s worth thinking about.

After all, these same bars are in OUR way.

Yes, and that is precisely why I thought the question is worth mentioning.

A.A, you might be right if you assume this was her goal.

If Ayn Rand's wrote her novels primarily to convert people to Objectivism, she would probably have done them differently. However, she indicated that it worked the other way around: she had to discover and refine her philosophy in order to be able to write her novels.

In the essay, "The Goal of My Writing" (The Romantic Manifesto), she wrote:

"Let me stress this: my purpose is not the philosophical enlightenment of her readers..." (Italics in original.)

Thank you. That is a very important fact, to which I was not aware.

[A.A]

  We (and I use this term, I hope, appropriately)

Just a small question: I am not sure what you meant in the above sentence (the one in brackets). Could you explain?

[JMeganSnow]

I meant, that I hope I use the term "we" as in "we Objectivists" correctly; i.e. that I am correct both in thinking that I can consider myself an Objectivist and that said Objectivists will not be TOO offended at my speaking in this manner.

[A.A]

JMeganSnow,

We (and I use this term, I hope, appropriately) do not waste our lives trying to figure out what compromises are necessary to lift everyone to the mountaintop.  If we are concerned with other people at all, we simply wish the bars that prevent them from rising if they so choose to be removed[...]I meant, that I hope I use the term "we" as in "we Objectivists" correctly; i.e. that I am correct both in thinking that I can consider myself an Objectivist and that said Objectivists will not be TOO offended at my speaking in this manner.

O.K, thank you. As a student of Objectivism, I certainly think that an Objectivist should think that way- meaning, not of compromises but rather of the "mountaintop", as you put it. My meaning was to raise the question whether it is a compromise or not. Apparently, the people here do not think this issue is interesting enough and that is fine.

Which character do you mean?  There are MANY characters in Atlas Shrugged with mixed premises (in fact, almost all of the characters have SOME kind of erroneous premise). 

Just to clear this up, I meant the “wet nurse”. I consider people who committed errors, such as Hank, Eddie, Dagany, Cheryl etc as people with the right basic Ethical-Political premises who make errors either in the implementation of these ideas in reality, or in their understanding of their Metaphysical-Epistemological roots. Other than the "wet nurse", every person in the story who starts with "looters` premises" is shown to be a corrupt person from inside. And seeing today’s culture, when looters` premises are well integrated in society, the point of this thread was raised.

[BurgessLau]

But when that person reads the novel, he/she sees that almost every bad character in it is inherently evil; beyond correction, so to speak.

[bold added for emphasis.]

What is your evidence for saying that most bad characters in Ayn Rand's novels are inherently evil and not immoral by choice (that is, through evasion of facts of reality)?

The battle between good and evil, which is described in that book, is not just a battle between ideas (or between ideas and non-ideas, as one may put it); it is also a battle between good people and evil people. And in that battle, almost every person who advocates an evil idea is inherently evil in his character as well.

First, ideas do not exist outside the minds of individuals. So, a battle over ideas is also a struggle between the individuals carrying those ideas.

Second, as a romantic-realist, not a naturalistic, fiction writer, Ayn Rand selects characters to support her theme -- not as a statistical portrait. In a well-written novel, every element, every word of that novel goes to support the theme. That means, here, that every character shows the theme, positively or negatively.

One further suggestion: "Evil" has a particular meaning. It is not synonymous with "immoral" or "bad." Evil refers to whatever -- within the realm of volition -- causes mass destruction. A man who breaks car windows to steal items left on a car seat is immoral and criminal. Hitler and Mao -- and the intellectuals who made them possible -- were evil.

[Free Capitalist]

I'd like to add to what Burgess said by saying that, Atlas Shrugged is such a well written novel, and it explains so many things, that some people expect it to explain everything, about everything. Thank, I think, is at the root of A.A's question - "well since she explained A, B, C, why didn't she explain D?" She went into detail just enough to dramatize her theme, and the book already ended up at over a thousand pages. How many more ideas would you have liked her to expand and interweave into the rest of the story, enlarging the book's size exponentially?

[A.A]

BurgessLau,

What is your evidence for saying that most bad characters in Ayn Rand's novels are inherently evil and not immoral by choice (that is, through evasion of facts of reality)?

From my analysis, there are 13 good characters in the book- Cheryl Brooks, Dagny Taggart, Dan Conway, Eddie Willers, Ellis Wyatt, Francisco d'Anconia, Hank Rearden, Hugh Akston, John Galt, Midas Mulligan, Ragnar Danneskjöld, Richard Halley, Owen Kellogg.

And there are 20 looters- Balph Eubank, Ben Nealy, Bertram Scudder, Betty Pope, Claude Slagenhop, Cuffy Meigs, James Taggart, Lillian Rearden, Mort Liddy, Mr. Mowen, Orren Boyle, Paul Larkin, Philip Rearden, Rearden's mother, Dr. Robert Stadler, Dr. Simon Pritchett, Mr. Thompson, Wesley Mouch, Floyd Parris, the "Wet nurse".

(I am reffering to major or medium characters, I hope I didn`t leave someone important out).

Out of those 20, six are described as bad from within- James Taggart, Lillian Rearden, Paul Larkin, Philip Rearden, Dr. Simon Pritchett, and Floyd Parris.

"Bad from within"- meaning that they are not just acting in an immoral way because they have somehow erred (or evaded), but because they understand that they are looters- and the fact that they understand is a continuing motif in the story. I understand that to suggest that they are corrupt in their nature. With the exception of the "wet nurse", no person that acts as a looter is shown to be an innocent person who does not understand that he is a looter (the other 13 aren`t shown thoroughly enough to reach a conclusion). To the best of my understanding, the differentiation you put between people who are bad by nature and not immoral by choice is characterized in the book in the differentiation between people who do not understand that they are looters and simply "evade" from thinking about it, and those who do understand. A good example, I think, is the one of Paul Larkin, who at the beginning looks like a pathetic person who does not want to succeed, and is later reveled to be someone who understood very well that he is looting his friend. And in the posts beginning this thread, I tried to explain the difficulty that kind of book-reality may arise with readers in today`s culture.

First, ideas do not exist outside the minds of individuals. So, a battle over ideas is also a struggle between the individuals carrying those ideas.

Thank you for the important correction.

Second, as a romantic-realist, not a naturalistic, fiction writer, Ayn Rand selects characters to support her theme -- not as a statistical portrait. In a well-written novel, every element, every word of that novel goes to support the theme. That means, here, that every character shows the theme, positively or negatively.

Yes, I now understand that. As you can see from the posts above, I was not aware of AR`s explanation regarding the purpose of the writing. You might say I had a bad premise . So I am currently focusing only on the impact the book may have on readers, and not on AR`s intentions while writing it.

One further suggestion: "Evil" has a particular meaning. It is not synonymous with "immoral" or "bad." Evil refers to whatever -- within the realm of volition -- causes mass destruction. A man who breaks car windows to steal items left on a car seat is immoral and criminal. Hitler and Mao -- and the intellectuals who made them possible -- were evil.

I understand your correction, thank you. By that definition, would you consider Lillian rearden evil?

I'd like to add to what Burgess said by saying that, Atlas Shrugged is such a well written novel, and it explains so many things, that some people expect it to explain everything, about everything. Thank, I think, is at the root of A.A's question - "well since she explained A, B, C, why didn't she explain D?" She went into detail just enough to dramatize her theme, and the book already ended up at over a thousand pages. How many more ideas would you have liked her to expand and interweave into the rest of the story, enlarging the book's size exponentially?

Edited April 15, 2005 by A.A

[A.A]

I would like to correct a distinction I made earlier, after looking in the "Ayn Rand Lexicon": I think that the six looters mentioned in my earlier posts (James Taggart, Lillian Rearden, Paul Larkin, Philip Rearden, Dr. Simon Pritchett, Floyd Parris) are all people who make "Breaches of morality" rather than "errors of knowledge" (the distinction is made on pages 149-150 in the "Ayn Rand Lexicon").

So, as for the question:

What is your evidence for saying that most bad characters in Ayn Rand's novels are inherently evil and not immoral by choice (that is, through evasion of facts of reality)?

My answer is that is not what I claimed, at least not what I meant to claim. Apparently I needed to clear up my definitions here. But I think that the basic point, about readers` response to this, might still be correct. Though it is true, as Free Capitalist noted, that I might be expecting too much here, and there is a limit to what one philosopher- as gifted as she may be- could do in order to fully explain her revolutionary philosophy.