"Be a filter not a sponge." This is what Bill advises Charlie Kelmeckis in the Perks of being a Wallflower upon giving him a copy of Ayn Rand's "Fountainhead" to read. When I first read the Perks of being a wallflower aged 15, "Fountainhead" was a foreign book to me, and I had to wonder what Charlie's English teacher had meant. For a long time I assumed 'The Fountain' head was full of expletives and other obscenities. That was until I read Naked lunch, a book Bill had warmly advised Charlie to read, that was full of sex, bad language and much more. What was it then, that was so obscene to Bill, that he had to warn Charlie not to absorb it? I realised once I read it exactly what Bill was talking about.
The fountainhead was one of the first books I ever read that I naturally 'filtered.' I didn't do it on purpose, in fact I completely forgot what was said about 'The fountainhead' in the perks of being a wallflower until I went back to read it, finding it expressed what I thought entirely. What makes the fountainhead so difficult to assimilate into the mind, compared with other modern classics like Catcher in the rye, and The bell jar, is that it encompasses a difficult to swallow philosophy: Objectivism, or the in other words the philosophy of selfishness. This expresses itself both positively and negatively in Rand's novel.
The plot itself is extremely engrossing, and despite a somewhat circulated opinion that Ayn Rand's writing style is poor, I think personally that she is an extremely talented writer. She can draw her readers into an immediate conflict, write interesting characters who respond to situations drastically differently, (as synedoches of her philosophy) well researches the environments she writes about, and can get away writing a 700 page novel (that should only be 300) by keeping the story interesting throughout, getting you to root for her main character's resolution. To me this marks a very talented author.
The story itself details two architects, Peter Keatings, a handsome, friendly, intelligent, but socially conscious character. and his roommate Howard Roark, an apathetic counterpart, who is facing expulsion for his refusal to listen to anyone in lieu of profane abstract designs. Peter is their universities' valedictorian, receiving a scholarship and the opportunity to work with the best architectural company in the business: Francon and Heyer. Roark is happily expelled and chooses to work for Henry Cameron, an out of work abstract architect who was once most in demand in America.
Peter charms his way up to the top, having everything seemingly fall into his lap, and designs building after building, all which are received well. Roark on the other hand hits roadblock after roadblock, having the office close down, not being able to eat properly. When he receives any sort of opportunity to build he squanders it by refusing to listen to any of the customers input, demanding that only his vision can be created and not anyone else's. Eventually Roark is forced out of a job and takes up work on a building site, where he meets equally apathetic Dominique Francon, daughter of Guy Francon, and later the powerful Gail Wynard, both who share his outlook on life.
Only much later in the novel do we start to see the tables start to turn, which is where Objectivism is given its positive mouthpiece. Peter Keating is revealed to be a heavily flawed being, despite appearing to be perfect. He bases his entire life on what other people want, he becomes valedictorian by copying exactly all the historical methods of architecture that he was taught, he rises through the business by being charming and by pretending to be whatever type of person he needs to be to be liked at the time. He doesn't derive any happiness from his achievements and only does most of what he does in order to please his mother. Peter is unable to do anything on his own. We see this struggle when he needs to design a building for a competition and finds himself completely unable to come up with an original idea. This is where he has to ask Roark to help him. Peter winds up lost and miserable, realising he has lost all of his integrity trying to base his life outside of his ego.
Roark on the other hand is Rand's perfect hero. Roark completely encompasses Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, which in an architectural sense would mean that one should create simply for the sake of creating as Roark sets out to do. Roark testifies in court, after destroying an orphanage he was commissioned to make that he didn't like, that we shouldn't create for any sort of external purpose, be it a business, or an altruistic purpose, and that we should only create, unhinged, for our own desire to see something come to fruition. Rand believed that selfishness (acting only for the self and not for anyone else) was an ideal and that altruism (doing things for other people, such as charity) was the ultimate evil. Altruism to Rand, expressed through the book's villain, Socialist philanthropist Ellsworth Toohey, (who tries to slander Roark's career,) is an ultimate form of submission, of slavery to the human race. Rand believes that people should not help one another, should not create for one another, and that it is simply each to their own. To live for one another, especially in creative terms, is to suppress oneself, to suppress ones vision, to suppress ones nature, for the sake of submission to a collective.
Throughout the novel there is a sense of unease, a feeling of not being fully able to digest. I finished the novel, Roark's succession of his buildings, brought to life, getting together with Dominique, a perfectly happy ending, and I said "I disagree." We understand why Peter is a flawed character, we understand why Roark is a noble one. We understand why you shouldn't base your creative pursuits, your self on the world around you. It is when the criticism of doing something for an altruistic purpose comes into play that the message of the novel is suddenly hard to understand.People are inherently ambiguous, the key to a successful world is not left or right, but compromise. Rand has presented Roark as the ideal, a character so objective, so apathetic, so against the natural inclinations of the human condition, so hellbent his creations, that he doesn't even seem like a human. I struggle with these types of philosophies. Anything that deals in absolutes is hard for me to agree with.
What we can take from Rand's novel is similar to what we can take from the beat writers, create, create, create, and care not what others think. But what we can ignore is what I'll add, don't pass up an opportunity to be kind.
That is what it means to be a filter and not a sponge.
Comments
Post a Comment