The “friend of humanity” has no friends. A great many admirers and fans, particularly women-fans who write him passionate letters after every lecture or radio-broadcast. But no real “pals.” His cold pose forbids it. He does not feel any lack from it. Loving all humanity as he does, he has never loved a single human being. When approached for help or money, he refuses, but makes the person who asked feel guilty and cruel at having imposed on his better feelings. “My dear, I am refusing for your own good. Believe me, it is harder for me than it is for you. But it is against my principles. It will destroy your feeling of self-reliance.” Intent on saving mankind, he has never helped a man. He does not do favors. When he stuffs choice positions with his protégés, it is done for his own sake and for the sake of his principles, never for the protégé. He prides himself on the epi thets : “impartial,” “fair,” “objective” and “incorruptible.”
The question of sex is a touchy one to him. Here, as in everything else, he craves superiority. He is no great power as a male and he is very conscious that his sexual organs are rather inadequate. He makes up for it by the most exquisite and varied perversions. (“My dear, we must be modern.”) Has a great collection of the most unusual aphrodisiacs (all the “happy boxes” and then some). Loves to think of himself as a great lover and as irresistible to women. (“For the life of me, I don’t see what attracts women to my unprepossessing self, God knows I’m no Apollo, and you’d never think that intellectual appeal counts in sex, would you?”) He has had mistresses—more than one at a time—but never a love affair. Visits whorehouses when necessary. Is very fastidious about his mistresses—they must be, above all, beautiful and feminine. Doesn’t go for intellectual women. His mistresses are seldom the pick of the chorus, but a good second best. He will not be seen with an unattractive woman. Makes a point of this. (He will have nothing but the best.)
Is naturally liberal in his sexual views, contending that the family is a bourgeois institution, but does not go for the subject of sex much. Too physical and consequently unimportant. After all, he is concerned with the purely intellectual aspects of life.
Although raised with religion and having undergone a mild attack of religious hysteria in his adolescence, he is now an agnostic, rather prone to frown on religion. After all, religion is a sort of individual refuge and as such it is dangerous. His insatiable lust for spiritual power would rather focus all emotion on the earthly collective, because the earthly collective—“c‘est moi.”
He is not a member of the Communist Party, because that Party is still considered lower class. (“Besides, I am a man of science, not a politician.”) He is not an open supporter of Soviet Russia. (“After all, I am an impartial observer.”) But his sympathies are with both—fervently, but always “objectively.”
He is a man so completely poisoned spiritually, that his puny physical appearance seems to be a walking testimonial to the spiritual pus filling his blood vessels.
1937
[After writing her character description of Toohey, AR attended two lectures by a prominent British socialist
,
Harold Laski
(
1893
-
1950
).
During an interview in 1961
,
she recalled:
Laski was the soul of Ellsworth Toohey in the flesh. After seeing Laski, I just had to remember how he lectured
—
his mannerisms, the pseudo-intellectual snideness, the whole manner of speaking on important subjects with inappropriate sarcasm as his only weapon
,
acting as if he were a charming scholar in a drawing room
,
but you could sense the bared teeth behind the smile, you could feel something evil
—
and I would know how Toohey would act in any circumstance
;
it gave me the complete sense of life of that type
.
Toohey is larger scale than Laski
,
who was a cheap little snide socialist
,
but Laski projected Toohey’s essential characteristics
. Even his
appearance
was
ideal
. I drew
a
sketch during the
lecture
,
with the narrow cadaverous face and glasses and big ears
,
and I gave it all to Toohey
.
The following notes are from the second of the Laski lectures
.]
Extremely well-dressed women (not too young, typically around forty and over) with a vapid and aggressive look—hatred of [the intellect] and insistently trying to acquire it. Only one I saw to be fairly attractive. A good type: a woman nearing fifty, medium height, slender,
very
well groomed; long, narrow face,
mainly nose
, pleasantly smiling, upturned lips (smiling too easily, with such a set, rehearsed, partly patronizing pleasantness), no eyes—all you see is the yellow-white lids and you have the uncomfortable feeling that the face has no focus and no opening, a face with no person behind it; a beige coat of smooth brown fur, a Russian-looking, fancy hat of the same cloth and fur;
and
—most prominent, the first thing you notice—glasses with a heavy black ribbon hanging
ostentatiously
from the corner of her eye.
Also a great many shabby, old-maid-librarian types of middle-aged women, most unbecomingly dressed; the first thing jumping off from them, hitting you in the face, is the fact that you simply cannot imagine a man [making love to] them.
Also—aggressive house-wife types, with old-fashioned hats and dirty-looking complexions.
Also—a great many homely young girls, poorly dressed, of all degrees of homeliness, amazing variations of it,
all
of them with flat shoes and very unkempt, uncombed hair. A sad look of defensive aggressiveness, unconvincing assurance, and that awful feeling of “we’re miscarriages physically, but we’re making up for it intellectually.”
Most of the audience are women. Few men comparatively and these better looking than the women, more prosperous, less freaky. Most of the men seem a little sheepish, quite a few seeming like good Babbitts dragged here by their wives—just as they are dragged to the play of their wives’ choice.
Single most unpleasant characterization of this audience—the mouths. There is more meekness and insincerity in the mouth than in any other part of the face. Is that the most expressive and most betraying organ?
Above all impressions—the horrible [spectacle] of intellectual vulgarity. A crowd of this same mental caliber going to a dance hall or saloon is much more attractive, honest and bearable than this phony search for intel lectuality. A pretense of brains should not be allowed to anyone except those who have brains. What horrible, horrible things can be done with the mind, through, with and for half-brains! How much better no brain is than half a brain!
A woman with horrible piano legs sitting right in the front row on the stage, facing the audience, with a short skirt, her legs crossed and lisle stockings ! Well-dressed and
flaunting
the stockings; also diamonds on her fingers quite [prominently] displayed.
It’s the aggressive, imperious expressions that are awful—on these people who are supposed to stand for equality, freedom, kindness, justice, etc. Isn’t that significant? Think of the implications, beyond the obvious ones.
Here comes Toohey
[
i
.
e
.,
Laski]:
He starts with explanations and “
advice
.” The audience laughs before any point is made.
“The
great
world”—“The
grim
reality”—always using important words sarcastically.
“A sovereign state is an anachronism”—“When the pound sterling falls, the heart of the secretary of the U.S. Treasury beats faster.”
Wears glasses
. Long neck, sloping shoulders, too narrow chin, wide temples, large ears.
“The white man’s burden has been borne by the black.”
“It would be possible to show—if it weren’t
impolite
to show ...”
The audience laughs every time he says “simple-minded.”
He looks terribly at ease, a little weary, a little bored—not offensively so, just gracefully so. (He leans limply sidewise against the stand.)
Simplicity and clarity of sentences—yet a few “exquisite” words.
“A stick to beat Mr. Chambers with—and let me say the bigger the stick the more honorable the purpose—” (Note the “witty” asides.)
“The limits of euphemism are infinite.”
“The poor, the lame, the halt ...”
“The government—whose discomfort at public discussion I can wholly understand—”
(The gals on the stage are yawning—the one with the lisle stockings, too.)
“It’s pure accident, it just happened that way”—[in regard to] something he quite definitely means was not an accident.
“I made up my mind twenty-five years ago to be a rank-and-file [member] of the Labour Party.”
March 15, 1937
An agency for writers has on its office wall a huge photograph of a mob (with mob faces) and the big letters: “Don’t forget whom you’re writing for.”(! )
March 27, 1937
A typical instance of the rising power of the masses—the open arrogance of inferiors who no longer try to imitate their superiors, but boldly flaunt their inferiority, their [mediocrity], their “popular appeal.” A state of affairs where quality is no longer of any importance, and where it is coming to be shunned, avoided, even despised. The paradox of the dregs of humanity actually feeling
contempt
for their betters,
because
they are better. Quantity alone considered important—quality no longer even considered. The masses triumphant.
Example of this: the head of a “charm school,” a contemptible racket, having been attacked by a “high brow” magazine, states haughtily: “Why should I worry? In all the years they’ve been in existence, they have only a hundred thousand circulation. I have a million customers in a year!”
March 28, 1937
More about Toohey.
He is vociferously rational while doing his best to deny reason. Basically, he is all for the heart above the mind, emotion above thought. [Superficially], he is strictly scientific, rational, materialistic, with only a few lapses into talk about the “soul.” His trick is the same as that of Christian Science. He realizes subconsciously that reason is the enemy of all “heart hokum” and of all spiritual rackets. Consequently, he destroys it by appearing to support it. He defends reason loudly, but [substitutes] for reason his own preposterous brand of pseudo-science. He betrays himself occasionally by his talk about the “pure in heart,” the “universal spirit” and other such mystic-Christian-communistic catch-words.
5
RCHITECTURAL RESEARCH
Before Ayn Rand could work out the plot of The Fountainhead and begin writing, she needed to know more about the profession of architecture. She asked the New York Public Library to recommend a list of books for her research. She read most of them in 1937, making extensive notes in her journal.
More than half of her notes are presented in this chapter
.
I have included nearly all of the notes in which she comments on her reading
,
or relates the material to The Fountainhead
.
I have omitted many quotes that she copied with little or no comment. I have also omitted passages in which she simply paraphrased factual material, without evaluation. For instance, AR made lengthy notes on
Skyscrapers
and the
Men
Who Build Them by W
.
A
.
Starrett concerning such topics as: the methods and problems of constructing large buildings
;
the division of responsibility among architects
,
engineers
,
and contractors; the time required to design, contract, and build skyscrapers; the financing of large buildings and the types of building contracts; the typical problems that arise with contractors and labor unions. Also omitted here are some notes on the training of architects, taken from The ABC of Architecture by Matlock Price, and notes on building codes and zoning laws in New York.
AR found aspects of The Fountainhead’s theme and characters everywhere in
the
actual profession of architecture. Ellsworth Toohey’s manner of combining architectural criticism with collectivist propaganda was taken in part from the writings of Lewis Mumford and Bruno Tout. She identified the second-handedness of Peter Keating in
the
work and writings of architect Thomas Hastings. As to deeper issues, she even recognized the central importance of the concept
“
unit
”
while considering the planned design of cities versus individual buildings. These notes are a record of AR’s unique philosophic perspective on architecture
.
March 13, 1936
[AR made the following notes on two great innovators in modern architecture: Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright
.
Louis Sullivan
(
1856
-
1924) is widely regarded as the father of modern architecture and particularly of the skyscraper
.
He seems to have served as the concrete inspiration for the character of Henry Cameron. Frank Lloyd Wright
(
1869
-
1959
)
is famous for his strikingly original designs
,
done in a style he referred to as “organic architecture
.”
In his basic architectural principles and in his fight for modern architecture against tradition
,
Wright served as a model for Howard Roark
.]
Louis Sullivan
Fight against eclecticism and classicism for an original, creative style.
Ousted by inability to conform to the prevailing mode, the majority.
Started as draftsman. Then—partner. Then—independent.
Incident of church “corrected” by cheap architect. Neglect of civilities. Lack of commissions. Smaller firms appreciated him more than large ones.