Recently, I watched Z, the mini-series on Amazon about Zelda Fitzgerald. Excluding certain characters who remain rolling in their graves from terrible handling (sorry, Bankhead sisters), the series is great. Christina Ricci and David Hoflin are radiant, embodying to the breath and brow every bit of Fitzgerald Flair.
Zelda Fitzgerald is a wily one. From the moment we meet her, she is buoyant, careless, and self-aware. She is a fearless individual who pursues whatever course of action fits her taste of the day.
Sometimes, this leads to recklessness. Zelda’s c’est la vie approach to her life is admirable from a viewer’s eyes, but it leads to deterioration in her familial and romantic relationships. Her spending habits rip apart her marriage, and her endearing self-centered actions in Montgomery as a teenager estrange her from her family.
Do we not sort-of glorify people who go after everything with reckless abandon?
There’s motivational posters all over classroom walls, Pinterest boards, and tumblr feeds about living like there’s no tomorrow, going after what you want no questions asked, and taking what is yours, “seizing the day.” It’s a subliminal goal we all have, to have everything we want, but one we hold as a nice but unrealistic goal. So when someone, such as Zelda Fitzgerald, breaks out of the mold, we applaud that person. From personal experience, though, either side of this is not quite as clean as it seems.
Settling for a lesser goal because the number one seems impossible is defeatist. I have never believed in anything but the one career goal I have always set for myself, because I believe it foolish to train for anything with less than 100% of my effort and attention. I do not compromise on this one goal. But I can afford not to compromise, because it really does not affect anyone else but myself. It would not affect the world if I became an actor; the world would keep turning. No one’s life or livelihood depends on me becoming or not becoming an actor. If I want to, I can dedicate my entire life to the practice of theatre, without compromise, and a puzzle piece will not be missing someplace else in the economy.
But in matters of things which do affect other people, it is a dangerous game not to compromise. Zelda and Scott live in a black-and-white world, in which there are only ups and downs, never happy mediums. Though it is wildly happy when there are ups, it is devastating when there are downs. Both people are highly ambitious and love each other very much, but they pursue their desires with such reckless abandon that it endangers the love they have for one another.
I remember watching a video of Eartha Kitt. I love her, but I didn’t quite agree with the premise of what she said. An interviewer asked her if she would compromise with a man in her life. Kitt laughed hysterically, and quipped: “A man walks into my life…and he wants me to compromise?”
It is in her that we find the admirable egoist mind. The kind where there is no such word as “compromise”, and everything is exactly as you want it to be without conflict. But just how possible is this? How can you go on with life and never be faced with a situation in which you must give up something in order to have another? This is a problem I had with Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead, as much as I loved it – how plausible is absolute selfishness? In my opinion, as implausible as absolute selflessness.
How do we balance the firebrand desire to know what we want and take it with the need to be sane? Do we compromise more than we don’t? Is it the other way around? Is it different for everyone? How do we find the happy medium between ambition and stability?