Self-Possessed

I found the relevant passage on pages 306-307 of the "Fiftieth Anniversary" paperback edition of the novel with the word in question in bold by my own hand:

Ellsworth Toohey was now forty-one years old. He lived in a distinguished apartment that seemed modest when compared to the size of the income he could have commanded if he wished. He liked to apply the adjective "conservative" to himself in one respect only: in his conservative good taste for clothes. No one had ever seen him lose his temper. His manner was immutable; it was the same in a drawing room, at a labor meeting, on a lecture platform, in the bathroom or during sexual intercourse: cool, self-possessed, amused, faintly patronizing.

People admired his sense of humor. He was, they said, a man who could laugh at himself. "I'm a dangerous person. Somebody ought to warn you against me," he said to people, in the tone of uttering the most preposterous thing in the world.

Of all the many titles bestowed upon him, he preferred one: Ellsworth Toohey, the Humanitarian.

Comments?

Post 21

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 11:09am

Self-possessed will always include self-control. Maybe self-possession is a high degree of comfort and confidence with ones routines of self-control. Ellsworth Toohey is clearly a man whose exterior is designed to aid him in philosophical predation, and to hide his emotions from others, by presenting a comfortable, genial persona. His self-possession lies in his comfort at maintaining this pleasant exterior that hides his interior disgust and hatred for people and for life. Roark's self-possession lies in his deep integration of his value of himself and his work and his rights. He would fit the description of self-possession I gave earlier in this thread - post 7, or some of what I said in post 13.

Post 22

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 2:24pm

I never got the impression that Toohey was hiding anything. He states quite often what he is about and even states that he is dangerous. People just weren't listening in the story. I took the character as every bit as self aware and focused as Roark, with opposite intentions and goals.

Post 23

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 3:46pm

I had the impression he was hiding his emotional nature - his hatred mostly.

Post 24

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 4:30pm

In my reading of Toohey's character, the "openness" that Ryan speaks of was for me his gleeful expression of contempt that he had for his fellow men who he judged to be too stupid, unaware or naive to understand the meaning of his explicit statements. I'm not sure Toohey was able to muster actual hatred for most of the people, other than Wynand and Roark, because he didn't feel that they even rose to the level where hatred would be warranted. I agree that he had a hatred for his own life, but primarily contempt for others.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 25

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 1:40pm

Greene's book arrived today - my but it is a thick book.... but looks interesting, so will be perusing it the coming week...

[indeed, am putting it at the top of what now is a stack of books over a foot tall of 'to be read's ;-)]

will prob begin it after finishing Norberg's In Defense of Global Capitalism , itself an excellent work.... and pushing back finishing Florida's The Rise of the Creative Class , another excellent work...

Post 26

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 1:57pm

Great! Robert. If I may suggest: take a quick look at the beginning of the chapter, "The Goal of Artistic Cognition," pg. 242. Also, did you see the pull-out chart near the back? Very interesting graphic plotting of art forms and the content, structural factors, etc. of each. This book is something.

Post 27

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 2:02pm

Ryan, I was re-reading this thread, and stopped on your statement about being overly self-possessed. Most people wouldn't say there was too much self-possession, but maybe you mean too little emotional? If you want to elaborate...

Post 28

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 6:23pm

Are you referring to me? I can't find where I said that. It is worded in a way that I might word a statement, but I can't see where I said that. Could you please quote the post.

Post 29

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 6:27pm

It's post 12 on this thread.

Post 30

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 6:34pm

"I always took self possessed literally. As in, in possession of his self. Acting deliberately and methodically at all times."
Still not seeing it. That is a word I would use though. It would probably be a semantic slip when I meant "very" if I did say it. I wouldn't say Toohey has too much self possession, which is what I think you're thinking I would have been saying.

Post 31

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 7:46pm

Do you realize that if ye not self-possessed, ye other-possessed? ;-)

or do ye consider it possible to be possessless?
(Edited by robert malcom on 1/24, 7:46pm)

Post 32

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 8:05pm

Took a look at the suggested chapter, Mindy, and if it is taken apart from the earlier sections I browsed thru, it does seem he was struggling for the cognitive differentiations Rand had, but fell into the Platonic mistake of percepts as not automatics like senses... further, the added but common mistake of 'intrinsic value' - there is no such thing, as Tara Smith clearly showed in her book Viable Values...[for something to be of value, there must first be a valuer - and if I, for instance, do not value that something, it is then not intrinsic]...

Worse, starting at the beginning, note his reference to 'artistic sensibilities', a pet phrase of Clive Bell - and sure enough, that is the basis on which he is making his case... which is an emotional base of aesthetics, not a cognitive one... [and, as such, very subjective]
(Edited by robert malcom on 1/24, 8:08pm)

Post 33

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 8:14pm

It's the typo, Ryan. I thought you were writing "too self-possessed."

Post 34

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 8:27pm