The book has 2 contrasting characters, Howark Roark, the Creator and Peter Keating, the second-hander. The author used these two contrasting characters to put forth her idea of Objectivism (DD, had a post on this already titledClearly Confused).
Roark is portrayed as the personification of the concept Objectivism. He does things he thinks as right and not affected by others opinion. He is the as man should be. Keating is the exact opposite of Roark. A man who lives in the eyes of others. A man so selfless that, he doesn't do what's he thinks as right but what will others think as right, a man as man should never be.
From the time I started reading this novel, there has been a debate in my mind, who I am like Roark? Or Keating? I think, I am like Keating. I live in the eyes of others, not everyone but only those I care about. I don't always do what I think is right, I do that offers least resistance and agreeable to me.
I enjoyed the book, especially the authors persuasive writing. She almost makes the reader agree with her. But I think Objectivism is possible only in a novel. The world is a collective entity. Everyone is dependent on one other for things big and small. People make compromises to make their life less difficult. People associate themselves with a group for the support and comfort, for the strength in numbers. There are few great souls like Buddha and Gandhi who embody Objectivism. But for an ordinary human, collectivism is the way to go.
ck said...
kel,
I mentioned Gandhi and Buddha as examples for not being second-handers.
I agree with you. They don't embody objectivism as I mentioned in my post.
-ck