Undergraduate /
"Who am I?" - Common App Essay [28]
Please help me edit this draft. ANY sort of suggestion/critique/correction and help editing extraneous portions would be appreciated! Please tell me what you fell about the essay, does it fit the prompt well?
[b]Prompt:
#4. Describe a character in fiction, a historical figure, or a creative work (as in art, music, science, etc.) that has had an influence on you, and explain that influence.
"Mum, are people only good or bad? Could they be something else?"
"Perhaps, but I'm not sure dear. Usually they are either good or bad."
As a child, I often wondered who I was. I certainly wasn't evil. However, I couldn't be good if I broke my best-friend's crayons, could I? What sort of a person was I then? My mother's response failed to resolve my innocent query. Eventually, these queries got piled up in the mound of the questions left unanswered.
Although I matured and left behind these childish doubts, growing up brought along with it, its own set of queries...
Was I an oddball for loving theatre and dance more than sports? Or was I a regular kid who had different interests?
Was I a grown up? Or was I still a child?
Was I a rebel for not listening to parents? Or was I a sheep for following rules otherwise?
There always seemed to be a hazy boundary between the two sides, leaving me confounded about the answer. Thus, the ultimate question remained - Who was I?
My need to belong somewhere led me to ask many questions. Therefore, I cultivated my reading to supplement my inquisitiveness. This led me to read Ayn Rand's work -'The Fountainhead', which finally managed to provide me with a definite answer.
The book narrates the story of struggling young architect, Howard Roark, in the United States in the 1920's and 1930's. Roark is an innovative genius who is always finds himself at odds with the society that perceives his work as deviations from conventional concepts. As a man of integrity he believes that a building, like the spirit of man, should be consistent and whole. Any incongruity is akin to defiling the spirit and its integrity. His refusal to conform his designs to traditional standards at the request of his clients leads him to lose many commissions.
Peter Keating, Roark's competitor, on the other hand is a successful architect. But he is mediocre in the absolute sense. Keating is not a creator; he merely gives the public what it wants. He has no ingenuity and borrows from other architects, including Roark, and sells out any standards he has ever held to achieve success and gain approval of people. Thus, Keating is a man of no integrity.
A major premise of the book revolves around drawing the difference between the Creator and the "Second-Hander". While a creator invents, innovates and drives humanity towards progress alone, a "second-hander" only scrounges. The "Second-Hander" is dependent on the approval of others. He does not invent, and lives off of other people's work. Rand draws this distinction through the stark comparison between the characters of Howard Roark and Peter Keating.
While reading the book the same question arose in my mind again. However, this time the question seemed to have turned itself around -
Who am I not?
I often found myself at a disagreement with the way the people perceive me. Since my interests and hobbies are different to a normal Indian kid I was deemed a non-conformist. My choice to pursue core Biology and not medical sciences or engineering was looked down upon. At times, it was difficult to hold my stance. However, the thought of giving up my convictions felt like an act of treason against myself. After reading 'The Fountainhead' I could draw a similarity between myself and the character of Howard Roark. His struggle against society and firm belief in his ideals personifies the internal turmoil I often experienced.
Whether it is my general disinterest in discussions about cars, bikes and sports, or my indifference towards people's judgemental eyes; people never deterred from questioning my choices and beliefs. When my convictions fail to satisfy them, uneasy looks are cast on me. The more I read the book, the more I questioned myself - giving rise to new doubts. I was fine being called an 'oddball', but I could not stand being uncertain about the genuineness of my choices. It is easy to pretend to like football to fit in, or do something irrespective of one's preferences - all this just to feel accepted. Had I been this way, there would have been no perceivable difference between Peter Keating and me. After all, I would merely fake the concept of uniqueness and shape myself in the way other wish to see me - just like a 'Second-Hander' would.
Thus, being a non-conformist becomes inconsequential if one's ideals and convictions are not justified. Hence, the concept of individuality loses its validity. 'The Fountainhead' like a mirror has allowed me to reflect on elements of my persona that I was uncertain about, and helped me plunge deeper into my psyche and question my beliefs. This has helped me to understand myself better. Now, when I see my reflection, I no longer observe a person unclear about the truthfulness of his convictions. Instead, I see the smiling visage of a person who has accepted himself the way he is.
So, again I ask myself:
"Who am I?"
- Definitely not a Second-Hander.