Notes on The Art of Seduction III

The Charmer, the Charismatic & the Star

These are the last 3 of 4 remaining archetypes Greene identifies in the book. The last archetype, the Anti-seducer, is slightly different and will be noted in the future to close the 10 sections of Part 1.

Before I get started I want to mention something in these sections that I haven’t touched on at all and that’s the “Symbols” Greene attributes to these archetypes while closing each section — I continually study tarot cards so I feel I should at least mention these symbols: The Siren is Water, Rake is Fire, The Ideal Lover is The Portrait Painter — stop, what is “The Portrait Painter?” He starts with elements universally used in the occult, astrology, etc., then this guy? The person holding a mirror, or the idol, and so on. It’s not occult or symbolic of anything outside the work itself, I think he’s just shooting for this kind of vibe to appeal to a certain audience and that’s fine. Robert Greene is not a bad writer, it’s been a pretty entertaining read thus far.

The Charmer

“Charm is seduction without sex. Charmers are consummate manipulators, masking their cleverness by creating a mood of pleasure and comfort.”

OK cool let’s get started.

“Learn to cast the Charmer’s spell by aiming at people’s primary weaknesses: vanity and self-esteem.”

Oh. Lovely. I believe I mentioned how amoral this feels in part 2.

The Charmer is a crafty communicator. The Charmer requires no romantic language to achieve the seductive effect like The Rake. The Charmer listens, a subtle and masterful flatterer, providing pleasure to the target through boundless validation. The Charmer is empathic, complements the mood and tone of the target, always pleasant, never argues, giving pleasure to the target and distracting them from their problems. The Charmer understands you, shares your moods, tastes, preferences and subject matter, they know that one’s favorite subject is usually themselves. The Charmer actively seeks to enhance his target’s life, feeding their own drive for personal advancement.

Candy and cigarettes: Don’t fight, surrender, indulge, comfort, validate. Be calm, unflappable and never let them see you sweat. A very predatory passive aggression, very Sun Tzu: “enemy attacks, we retreat.” When they are vulnerable make your overtures just as Sun Tzu would have you harass when the enemy digs in. Whisper like an incubus, suggest and plant the seeds of control when most advantageous and possess their mind. This archetype aims to make you feel that they are a necessary provider, wrapped in their co-dependent domination game.

I think of all the archetypes thus far, this can be the most evil motherfucker. People who insinuate themselves in the lives and minds of vulnerable people through flattery and careful lies, encouraging the illusion of being some kind of benevolent provider

e.g.:

• Grima Wormtongue, from The Lord of the Rings trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien. Théoden is highly dependent when he appears in The Two Towers, requiring magic to be loosed from Wormtongue’s influence. Sure, Saruman was really behind it, but the essential vector is Wormtongue’s flattery and charm.
• Classy Hookers (the hottie hanging on to your arm at the event, not the fellatio afterward). Greene’s example of geishas is perfect. These are professionals who know exactly what they’re doing and I have no doubt they’re worth every penny.
• Many, if not most, politicians — Greene cites numerous ruling figures as being Charmers. The Charmer is a consummate diplomat. The more power they have, the more problematic they are.

The Charismatic

The most recognizable and dangerous of the seductive archetypes is the Charismatic. Prophets, visionaries, other inspiring characters throughout history and mythology. As Greene points out, the Greek word Charisma referred specifically to prophets and Christ himself. People seen to be closer to God, some quality to them that hints of the divine and makes people want to follow them. It is fundamentally mystical in nature. Greene says something interesting here:

“In our rational, disenchanted world, people crave a religious experience, particularly on a group level. Any sign of charisma plays to this desire to believe in something. And there is nothing more seductive than giving people something to believe in and follow.”

This has nothing to do with our “rational, disenchanted world,” people have always craved religious experience. Mystical experience has been the most influential and impactful aspect of human life throughout all of our history. Our rational disenchanted world just compounds this because the mystical experience is widely disregarded now by those that believe they know better, leaving a gap in the human experience left unfulfilled by modernity.

Charismatics bring the promise that they will bring people closer to God, closer to understanding this affinity for the mystic, in the hope that we might know the mind of creation. One could argue that this can be a fine thing, some people are singularly inspiring and do, in fact, seem to provide some measure of authentic insight into what we call the divine. All of the Great Religions are charismatically inspired, and charisma is a huge component in religious technique and faith universally. It can also be a decidedly negative thing — a most terrible and dangerous of things, in fact. I think that’s more what Greene is talking about here.

He identifies a number of qualities of the Charismatic that can be acquired:

• Purpose
• Mystery
• Saintliness
• Eloquence
• Theatricality
• Uninhibitedness
• Fervency
• Vulnerability
• Adventurousness
• Magnetism

What I think is interesting is the amount of overlap here. Pretty much any of the archetypes he has listed to now have had these or similar qualities, resulting in a somewhat otherworldly influence over others for their own benefit. The Charismatic seems to be more directed at those who inspire religious or political cults of personality.

I detest running to the example of Nazis for effect, but I think it’s perfectly appropriate to bring up here the example of Adolph Hitler and the National Socialist propaganda machine of the 20’s & 30's. I adore old propaganda, you can learn a lot from it about the instruments of control and influence and you have to admit that Hitler’s propaganda and image crafting was absolutely peerless. One of the few photoshoots he did was a series of photos that showed him practicing his facial expressions, body language, the look in his eyes, which he did for hours in front of a mirror. Hitler was not just personally but intimately involved in the production of Nazi propaganda, he had a keen mind for it, but his primary method of influence was public speaking. He was a powerful and passionate public speaker that over time whipped the German people into a frenzy of militant nationalism at a time when working people wanted socialism to address the poverty they were encouraged to blame on the victors of WW1, the Treaty of Versailles and a variety of demographic and social groups. An otherwise unremarkable man who had a physical presence that inspired awe in others by exploiting the Charismatic to achieve a sort of mystical persona. Napoleon had the same effect somehow, despite being short, ugly and French.

Some people have this charismatic presence naturally. For instance, by personal observation, Bill Clinton vs George HW Bush. I was a young man in southern CA playing a band that performed at a rally for Bush Sr in the late 80’s, and when he was done with his speech he came down the shake some hands and be among the people, and being as I had a head start I was among the first to the stage. I found him very warm, polite, nice man. Clinton, however, had a different gravitas. When Bill Clinton walked into the room you could almost feel it, he positively dripped with a natural charisma. When you shook his hand you felt like he came there just to talk to you.

e.g.:

• Adolph Hitler, of course, and any number of other political figures like him that inspire slavish devotion and/or revolutionary fervor around them.
• Most any effective faith leader relies to some degree on charisma by definition, for good (Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha) or ill (televangelists, cult leaders galore).
• Joachin Phoenix. He did a few interviews and appearances in which he acted very strange, a little cryptic, hinting at some transformation or enlightenment. I think he was trying to take on the air of a Charismatic to boost his appeal (or the eccentric Natural from Part II). Fantastic actor. Strange man.
• Kanye “Ye” West attempts to be a Charismatic. He’s long marketed himself as the voice of a generation (which one? I don’t know anymore). Dipping his hand in the ring of politics was inevitable and an absolute delight to all God’s children. I anxiously await the grand opening of The First Church of Ye.

I wonder though if Mr. Phoenix and Pastor Ye might land in a different category…

The Star

“The patterns of myth, born out of warring feelings of helplessness on the one hand and thirst for immortality on the other, are deeply engraved in us all.”

There are certain pop culture icons that have a seductive gravitas of their own. They have all of what we might call “star power.” Greene again brings up Marlene Dietrich and Andy Warhol. I think he likes them. I do as well, and may need to watch The Blue Angel again.

These people have an elusive quality that relies on being otherworldly. The Star stands apart from the hum drum existence of every day average working mortals. An alien human, a psychically eerie figure, both real and unreal. Creatures that do not exist outside of movies and television, a synthetic divine pantheon.

Greene makes a distinction here between the seductive Star of the screen and the stars of the theater. Theater is too real, you watch a powerful scene and there’s a real human up there, weeping. Powerful, beautiful to see and experience, but theater is too attached to the physical world and the spoken word. Compare to the screen, the people on it are detached from the viewer and from reality, never fully real regardless of how lifelike the image. Image and symbol are always more powerful than word.

What strikes me about this section is that it seems to take a great many of the examples of previous archetypes into their own umbrella now, undermining his own references. JFK, Andy Warhol, Marlene Dietrich, Marilyn Monroe, all mentioned again here.

e.g.:

• I wondered at the beginning of this book if Kim Kardashian can really be called a Siren — isn’t she really just the Star? I know that there’s a reality show that tried to humanize that bunch, but face it, they may as well live on another planet. Look at her on the red carpet, she looks like a living statue, flawless and untouchable, a strange half-smile on her face she probably practiced for not less than 37,000 hours. It’s all image, carefully crafted and controlled and very very very lucrative. No other talent required.
• Young Stars are being continually generated e.g. JoJo Siwa, Mylie Cyrus and the Olsen Twins.
• Bono. He has this skillfully marketed aesthetic that hints he is on some higher conscious plane than everyone else. He has his pet projects, you see inside the man sometimes, but it’s all mass media image. May also drift into being a Charismatic. Late 80’s early 90’s U2 was pretty solid but I’ve never been a big fan.

This archetype or some facsimile thereof is increasingly common as the screen becomes more and more pervasive. There are countless people and new ones all the time, purely products, the crafted images of the Star. Image and video are everywhere and everything.

Next: The Anti-Seducer and closing thoughts on Part 1