Roark: When I listen to a symphony I love, I don't get from it what the composer got. His 'Yes' is different from mine. He could have no concern for mine and no exact conception of it. The answer is too personal for each man. But in giving himself what he wanted, he gave me a great experience. I'm alone when I design a house, Gail, and you can never know in which way I own it. But if you said your own 'Amen' to it -- it's also yours. And I'm glad it's yours.
This passage, among many others from Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead stayed with me. I'm risking sounding either like a cult member or a total literary sycophant, but this book has really helped me and changed my outlook on things... slightly. To paraphrase Roark, I own this book and the experience probably in a different manner than Ms. Rand intended, and since I'm fine with that, I'm sure she would be too.
For those of you unfamiliar, The Fountainhead starts out as a study in contrasts of two students at an architectural college. Peter Keating is a popular student who suppressed his desires to be a painter so he can find a more stable career, partially to appease his mother. Peter's designs are capable and average. Then there's Howard Roark. He is aloof, unpopular, and has (at the time) outrageous ideas about architecture and sticks to his artistic principles over everything else. Howard's stubborn nature and antisocial tendencies gets him in trouble at school and then later in the business world as he tries to make a living as an architect. Conversely, Peter maneuvers himself into the most prestigious architectural firm in New York City and trades more on his charm than talent.
Ms. Rand sets up an intriguing question: how does an artist survive in this society? Does the artist completely submit his vision to his patrons/clients or does the artist completely stick to his guns and be true to his nature? For a while this goes back and forth in a very scintillating manner. Keating is far more relatable, since he vocalizes many of the insecurities we all have. Am I good enough? Should I be doing this? When will they realize I'm making this up as I go along? Roark maintains his standoffishness for long stretches of the book, making him a character you admire more than you like. And then, that's when Ms. Rand introduces the love interest: Dominique Francon. A love triangle of sorts then kicks in between the three of them, which starts out being more flirty and then ends up being more philosophical. (I'll try to avoid spoiling things for those of you who haven't read it)
What Ayn Rand says about Objectivism [her philosophy] in Fountainhead (or at least what I now *own* from it), the thesis of this book is that people need to be true to themselves. There are some long speeches towards the end of the book, differentiating between what Ms. Rand calls "egotists" and "second-handers". Egotists, according to Fountainhead, are those people who create. Inventors, artists, designers, architects, writers, et. al. all are egotists. They create because they need to. Second-handers are those who live off of the egotists, since they create nothing and since they cannot, they have mixed feelings about egotists -- they hate the egotists because they are jealous, and vice versa. Ms. Rand goes on and on (and on - the book is almost 700 pages long) about how egotists are better and purer, etc. Egotists have their own better natures at heart so they can grow and improve and become better, while second-handers do what they can to have people not follow their desires, and therefore not encourage improvement amongst us as a people.
Now, I'm not a fascist enough to completely go along with this. I've always believed that people who actually did things deserved more respect than those that don't. There was a while during my first two years in college that I was seriously considering becoming a film critic. At the time, I doing community theater as well. The longer I was a film major, the less film classes I took and the more theater I did. I then officially switched majors, and I haven't looked back. If you make a literal breakdown of the word, actor is "one who acts, does." A critic is one who sits and comments. By this breakdown, an actor is an egotist and a critic is a second-hander, since he needs something to criticize.
You all know me well enough now to know that I am a very goal-oriented person and am rather driven, so obviously this kind of philosophy does speak volumes to me. But that also doesn't mean that people don't have value or mean less. I firmly believe, down to the tips of my toes, that everyone has a reason for being here. Whether it is being a critic, an artist, a mother, a lawyer, a doctor, a game designer -- whatever it is, people have a purpose. Everyone has the right to pursue their dreams, their aspirations, and doing anything to deter those dreams is just wrong. Everyone has talent and potential to do something with their lives.
When you are true to yourself and what you want, it can be a more difficult path. If what you really want to do is work at a non-profit organization helping battered women, it probably won't make you wealthy, but if it fulfills you, why not? If you're doing it for you, then why give a rat's ass if your neighbors have a brand new TV, etc.? Conversely, if you really want to be a painter, steel yourself for the long periods of poverty so you do what you want. As the cliche goes, you can't take your money with you when you go, so don't you think you should go with as few regrets as possible? You do what do for yourself and no one else. You do it because you have to and it fulfills you, and the influence of others shouldn't factor in. Here's a summation of this from the book, between Roark and culture critic Ellsworth Toohey:
Toohey: Mr. Roark, we're alone here. Why don't you tell me what you think of me? In any words you wish. No one will hear us.
Roark: But I don't think of you.
Without spoiling too much, Toohey isn't fond of Roark's work, and has published some harsh articles about it. But Roark doesn't care. Roark is an architect because that is how he expresses himself, and he could give two shits what Toohey thinks. He's happy that Wynand gets something out of his work, but he could take or leave public opinion. Wynand and Roark have long debates in the book, and at one point, Roark tells Wynand that while he would go into a burning building to save Wynand, "I could never live for you."
That is so very profound to me. As a creative person, this speaks volumes to me. Several times in my career, people have said told me to give up acting, to not act in L.A., to only give it a few years and then do something else, etc. I honestly cannot think of anything else I'd rather do that fulfills me than be an actor. I have other talents and skills, some of which can be fun, but none of them actually quenches my thirst, so to speak. Katie once asked me if my true love asked me to choose between a life with him or acting, which would I choose? Well, for me, it's a moot question. If someone truly loved me, they would want me to be the best person I can be and to fulfill my dreams. So, by merely asking me the question, the answer is there. Now, I can assure you, Tom has never asked me this. He knows me well enough to know that this is what I want, and calls me on my crap when I get wussy about my career. It takes a lot of work following dreams. It takes effort, work, blood, sweat, and tears. But I'd rather fight this fight and go after what I want than be sitting in an office, scared out of my mind with the mere thought of trying to do it.
Now, I want to assure you all that I haven't suddenly become an uberright-wing whacko. I believe in helping people. I believe in charity. I believe in higher taxes for the wealthy. I believe that no one is above the law. I believe that everyone has to pull their own weight. I believe in universal health care. I am pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-gun control (though I don't believe that the majority of people who own guns are a bunch of nutjobs). I believe in people having a level playing field -- that means everyone has to have the best education possible and access to the best resources we have. I do think we need to encourage people to utilize their potential, and I do believe that those who do should be rewarded, if not necessarily for their benefit, but to show others that they too can achieve their dreams and goals.
Er... I guess you might say I really liked The Fountainhead. It helped crystallize a lot of ideas in my head. It was one of the reasons that I kicked off my 101 in 1001. It inspired me to get Atlas Shrugged. I'll start reading that in about a week or two. I think I'll do a graphic novel -- I need a mental sherbet to cleanse the palate.
Recent Comments