Jordan Peterson’s appraisal of Rand’s fiction and philosophy is similar to what Nathaniel Branden has said in his lectures and essays (after his breakup with Rand). In a recent interview with Dave Rubin, here's what Peterson had to say on Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism:
Well, I like the emphasis on individual responsibility. You know, I think that’s very important… I think she was more powerful as a fiction writer than as a philosopher. And that’s not a denigrating comment because I don’t believe that philosophy is a higher calling than fiction… They have their own domains. I think my sense is that I don’t regard Ayn Rand as a great mind. I don’t think that her take on things was sufficiently differentiated and sophisticated. Like I said, she had reasons to be anti-communist. (Laughs). There can be plenty of reasons for being anti-communist and I can resonate with her critiques of collectivism and I like the romanticism in the books. I enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged. I read it again recently, I enjoyed it again. But I also don’t think that it is great literature and the reason for that is she doesn’t place the struggle between good and evil inside her characters. It is always between characters and that’s a mistake. Because even your most radical leftwing revolutionary is mostly not a radical leftwing revolutionary.
So you have to show the struggle within more, and I don’t think that she does a very good job of that. Her noble people are too noble and her ignoble people are too ignoble. And it divides the world too much into the bad guys and the good guys. It is like — that’s comforting and there is an archetypical element to it too, but it’s not sufficiently differentiated enough or sophisticated enough.Here's the YouTube video of the conversation between Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson: