Martin Sheen's AARP Comment

On the cover of the July/August issue of the AARP magazine is a photo of actor Martin Sheen, along with a quote from him that reads, “Nothing ever gets done unless it’s done by a fanatic.” I wasn’t in a position to read the article within the magazine, but the comment by itself piqued my interest and gave me pause for some reflection. And this is what I came up with: Sheen’s statement needs analysis in two steps: one, what is the meaning of “getting things done” and, two, how true is the statement?

As functioning social human beings living a day-to-day existence, we (if responsible) habitually take care of our own business and that of our obligations to society. By habit, I again stress. I don’t think this is what Sheen was referring to by “nothing gets done”, though. It is when people need to step out of the box and come up with innovations to solve problems, as well as exercising the will the implement these solutions, that getting things done takes on the renown actor’s intended meaning. But stepping away from habits and doing things differently is not natural to anyone. Only someone who is already fanatically obsessed with the area that needs change will be there to do the needed work. And yes, I believe that this is true!

The late prolific author Isaac Asimov, regardless of his wealth and fame, adhered to a brutal regimen with his writing that he termed “candy store hours”, after the very long hours that his immigrant father put in for many years with the family candy store business. Fellow prolific writing superstar Stephen King has claimed that anyone who truly expects any real success in writing needs to set aside AT LEAST four hours per day to read and four more hours to write. Assuming that one already is working an eight hour per day job to begin with, the only conclusion is that King also believes that fanaticism is a prerequisite for success (at least in his field). Perhaps the supreme example of fanaticism leading to progress is that of Thomas Edison, the famous American inventor who would work continuously in his lab around the clock, only occasionally cat-napping in his zealous pursuit of technological innovation. And anyone who has been in the armed forces can recognize the imposed fanaticism of discipline, particularly during basic training, that can seemingly instantly transform raw civilian recruits into very disciplined, purposeful, and useful soldiers. And look at the activists of today, global warming activist Al Gore being a shining example: Gore eats, drinks, and breathes his cause. It is clearly the BIG THING to him and little else comes close. This is fanaticism, all right!

As I ponder this topic, I reflect on my own life and how I am so spread out with my interests. Does this mean that I have little hope of achieving any meaningful progress in any of them, since I am by no means a fanatic? Or does it matter? I once remember seeing a Twilight Zone episode titled A Game of Pool starring Jack Klugman and Jonathan Winters. Klugman’s character was a fanatical pool player whose only reason for living was to become the greatest player ever. He gets a chance to play against the all-time best-ever, played by Winters. Only Winters’ character was dead, and the pool match was a life-or-death match for Klugman (only in the Twilight Zone). As the match was drawing down, Winters gently persuaded Klugman that there was more to life than just pool, and that, though he himself had enjoyed some success in the sport, he had also enjoyed life in general and many of its joys as well. The moral of this episode was clear: balance trumps fanaticism. But is that a moral for chumps, and should everybody have at least one BIG THING that he/she is fanatical about? H-m-m-m!