I'm hoping to write a future screenplay about Ayn Rand and Frank Lloyd
Wright. Wright was the model for Howard Roark in THE FOUNTAINHEAD which I
found to be a thoroughly entertaining novel as a youth, especially since it
plugs into my fascination with architecture. ATLAS SHRUGGED is a grossly
over written novel, but the Fountainhead has a very well crafted narrative --
you just have to keep reading to find out what's going to happen. The
characters are well drawn and Roark is the most compelling because of his
deep seated conviction to his original visions. Only a few years ago I made
a decision to be like Howard Roark in whatever original work I commenced, to
please myself first, and let everybody else think whatever. Like Roark, that
means working in my own equivalent of a marble quarry at times.
As a religious skeptic, I have no problem with Ayn Rand being an atheist. I
don't believe human beings have to have a spiritual life in order to be
complete. Science doesn't destroy the mysteries of life, it only leads us
even further into them, extending a sense of awe and cosmic intrigue which
rivals that of a religious holy moment. Rand was also writing from the
perspective of a Russian Jewish emigree who had escaped Stalinism. She was
absolutely right to see that Soviet style communism destroyed personal
initiative and created a static, even paralyzed society.
Many scholars question whether Rand had any real ideas of her own. She would
like to have been considered a philosopher, but she is not accepted as one by
philosophical academics. Her ideas were mostly culled from Nietzsche and the
only thing new about these ideas was her re-naming them. My undergraduate
degree is in English Literature, and Ayn Rand was never taught at either UCLA
or Boston University where I went to school. None of my friends who are
English professors have ever taken and would not give a class that included
the novels of Ayn Rand. As an author, she is just not taken that seriously.
I think her books are important in the same way that books like JUSTINE or
THE STORY OF O or INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE or even GONE WITH THE WIND are
important, because they provide insight into a mindset. They are not
important so much for what the author intends, but more for what they express
in an unconscious way. Contrary to the French deconstructionists, I think
it's always important to examine the life of an author along with his/her
books. In Ayn Rand's case, from all acounts, her personal life was a
disaster, and very often, the lives of those around her were also made
disastrous. She was the head of a cult with the typical dynamic of any cult:
she enjoyed the sexual favors of a number of young, male acolytes and
excommunicated anyone who defied her or questioned the principles of
Objectivism. Her ruthless self-promotion, lust for power and unmitigated
greed were her complete undoing and all of her personal relationships were
hopelessly troubled. She turned on the psychologist Nathaniel Brandon after
he left her and continued to battle him for years afterwards as the ultimate
woman scorned. Brandon wrote about it in a fascinating book which excoriates
his former mentor. Also interesting is a book called THE CULT OF AYN RAND
which any serious Rand devotee should read to see what the actual results of
"objectivism" are as practiced by its originator.
Rand's books have some dangerous elements that should be examined. One of
the things that made THE FOUNTAINHEAD so interesting is that the woman in
love with Howard Roark expresses her love for him by trying to destroy him.
I suppose Ayn would say that this character chose to be an obstacle in order
to present Roark with challenges that would only push him to further
excellence. It's an interesting idea for a novel, but that kind of behavior
should never be a prescription for an actual relationship. At least two of
Ayn's female characters are into provoking men to some extreme where they
finally drag them off, cave man style, to submit them to total sexual
domination.
The most dangerous idea that Rand promotes is the one that some of us are
superior to the rest of the humans -- we're just waiting for John Galt to
gather us up with all the other homo superiors. This is an appealing idea
for people who have been marginalized, or feel as if they are, which is why
Ayn Rand has such a strong homosexual following.
Frank Lloyd Wright was an undeniable genius, but he had his own cult and his
own behavior was shamelessly amoral. End result was a life wrought with
sensational tragedies. It reminds me of Joni talking about how all her
artistic heroes, Picasso and Miles Davis among them, were monsters. I don't
think you have to be a monster to be a genius. One of my own heroes, Woody
Allen, is a monster, and I understand why some people have a hard time
separating his art from the man. In the case of Ayn Rand, you see someone
who lives out the philosophy she espouses and the result is disastrous both
for herself, the people around her, the people she names in the HUAC
hearings. She was the ultimate narcissist who treated all others as objects
for her own manipulation. Imagine what kind of f*cked up world we would have
if everybody behaved the same way.
All service may be self-serving, all actions for others are done for
ourselves, but there is total selfishness and there is moral, considerate
selfishness which recognizes that all of us are embedded in the same social
context, and that our interactions should be mutually fulfilling and never
exploitive. Someone else on this list already said something which is so
true: the world need as much love and compassion as we can all muster.
- Clark
NP: Petuala Clark - Greatest Hits
