for such advice or following another man’s opinion.
(In the book, Roark later gives Keating the same advice, but contemptuously and indifferently, simply to end the conversation. By that time, Keating’s sincerity is gone; he is putting on an act for Roark; and Roark merely dismisses him. This again is an issue of the implications of a context.)
In the original scene, my best touch of characterization is the following exchange. Keating says, “How do you always manage to decide?” and Roark answers, “How can you let others decide for you?” These two lines convey the essence of the two characters. In the rewritten scene, I dropped them.
I want to pause on these lines in order to show how to integrate philosophical propaganda into fiction.
Such an issue as “I always decide for myself” versus “I go by the opinions of others” is extremely wide. If two characters started discussing it out of a clear sky, that would be sheer propaganda. But in the above scene, the two men are stating an abstract issue as it applies to their own problems and to the concrete situation before the reader’s eyes. The abstract discussion is natural in the context, and, therefore, almost unnoticeable.
This is the only way to state abstract principles in fiction. If the concrete illustration is given in the problems and actions of the story, you can afford to have a character state a wide principle. If, however, the action does not support it, that wide principle will stick out like a propaganda poster.
How much philosophy you can present without turning into a propagandist, as opposed to a proper fiction writer, depends on how much of an event the philosophy is covering. In the above scene, it would have been too early for the two boys to make more of a statement than they did, even though the issue stated is independence versus second-handedness, which is the theme of the whole book. Given what is specifically concretized in the scene, one exchange of lines is enough abstract philosophy.
A speech like John Galt’s in Atlas Shrugged would have been too much for Roark’s courtroom speech in The Fountainhead. The events of The Fountainhead do not illustrate as many issues as do the events of Atlas Shrugged.
To judge how long a philosophical speech should be, go by the following standard: How detailed and complex are the events which you have offered to concretize the speech? If the events warrant it, you can make as long a statement as you wish without taking the reader outside the framework of the story.
Now look again at the rewritten scene. I depart blatantly from the original Roark when he says: “Well, there are many different opinions in the world.” This implies a tolerant respect for all differences of opinion, and thus a nonobjective, nonabsolute view of ideas—as contrasted to such absolutism in the original scene that Roark does not even bother to argue about ideas with Keating.
Next, Keating says: “You always know how to decide.” Roark answers : “I try my best.” If you are presenting a man who is independent and who will go on to fight the whole world, and if in one of the first scenes he says, “I try my best,” you give yourself a handicap in characterization that no amount of heroic actions on your hero’s part can overcome. It is a blatant contradiction: a strong man who relies only on his own judgment would never utter such a modest line.
Next, Keating asks: “How do you do it?” Roark answers: “I guess I just do it.” Journalistically, this line can pass almost unnoticed; that is the normal way for men of average premises to speak. But no heroic rebel, particularly not a representative of rationality, will ever say “I guess I just do it” about his own career.
Then Keating says: “But you see, I’m not sure, Howard. I’m never sure of myself. You always are. ” Roark answers: “Oh, I wouldn’t say that. But I guess I’m sure about my work.” This line characterizes Roark as a man who does not hold self-confidence as an absolute virtue; he sees no reason why he should be confident about anything except his work. The result is that he becomes superficial and concrete-bound. He might be principled in regard to his work, but he has no wider idea of principles, no basic philosophical convictions or values. In effect, he becomes like Arrowsmith. As I said, Arrowsmith too has a certain integrity and determination in regard to