Bravo for Walrus for excoriating this puff of inane wind: “In her May issue editor's letter, ELLE Editor-in-Chief, Robbie Myers, writes: ‘There is something innately regal about Chelsea—a kind of grace that doesn't seem practiced, or trotted out just for public consumption. She's a person of substance for sure, a young woman who, while measured in her manner, has a fierceness of conviction, and a calling to make the world a better place.’"
First of all, I’m sure the most passionate admirer of this prose is the author. I am not sure of very many things in life, but I am quite sure of that. Sunshine beams at her from her parents, her associates, her friends. No sullen cloud would be impertinent enough to cast a shadow over this radiant language, and such dazzling virtuosity. The writer of this is being born aloft by the conviction that she has produced a prose masterpiece.
But has she?
Questions must be asked. What does Chelsea’s “regal” grace consist of? Of course, the way we present ourselves in society tells very much about us. As a young man I was neurotically shy. It was a curse. I hated groups or crowds, and an editor of mine at Life Magazine once said that when I entered a bustling scene, it was like seeing “an owl being forced out upon the day.” I shrank from the spot light and was suspicious of fresh contacts.
So what action did Chelsea perform that revealed her regal grace? Did she carry herself with majestic erectness? (Apparently Chelsea was not an owl forced out upon the day.) But what did the editor see? What struck her eye? When we look without bias at another person, what we first notice is their posture, their self command, their bodily discipline, their ability to exhibit a presence that displays poise, flexibility and balance. Was Chelsea’s bearing energetic? Were her movements supple, free of self-consciousness and lacking any trace of awkwardness. Were her movements fluid and becoming? In other words, it would hard to rhapsodize over a public figure that slinks into social situation acting like a kicked dog.
However, we have to remember that the first impressions we have of someone are going to be the most reliable. First impressions are the ones that tell the truth. We are very malleable people, uncritically gullible and susceptible, and additional exposure to a famous person is likely to betray what we first saw. We reason ourselves out of our initial perceptions. Of course, if a subject learns that we are watching them, they immediately change, and the changes are not for the better. They will lapse into the habitual. They will don their disguises. So what we want to do is to catch them off guard. Otherwise, additional views of our subject will be like looking at a shop window, with the most valuable, eye-catching goods put up front, and the innate defects erased by calculated show.
In other words, what do we find if we look carefully at another human being over time, at times when they are not aware of being watched? Of course, everyone is polite when meeting people for the first time. Everyone smiles benignly at everyone else at a reception. But one of the first things we must try to discern is a person’s habitual expression, and unfortunately, a person’s habitual expression is likely to be concealed by disguises and fake show and `1disconcerting and tawdry display. Deciphering it will take time. But even the most committed hypocrite cannot be on guard all the time, famous or not. They slip and make mistakes. But we want to obtain is a glimpse of them when they are bored, tired, ill humored, out of sorts or annoyed. What do we see then if we look?
I have a son who hates to be photographed for family scenes, because he wants his expression to be sincere, not artificially sweet, or manicured or coerced for the occasion. He is an honest man, and he has a point. An expression of any person in the public eye can simply be an act; their look can put on or taken off like any fake mask; it can be donned or removed in a moment. But the habitual expression of a person is not the work of a moment – it is the work of years. If we , in our deepest, most habitual natures, are secretly embittered, cruel, fault finding, filled to the top with venomous malice – all these will displayed at some point when we drop our guard.
When we try to examine the face of someone famous, our ambition is to discern their habitual expression. But even the most committed hypocrite cannot be on guard all the time. They slip and make mistakes. Of course, everyone is polite when meeting people for the first time. Everyone smiles benignly at everyone else at a reception. But we want to obtain is a glimpse of our subject when they are bored, tired, ill humored, out of sorts or annoyed. What do you see then if we look?
The question remains, what personal qualities dose Chelsea possess that make her “regal?” When an impartial spectator, who had not been briefed, watches Chelsea as she steps into any scene – what will they really see and admire? What is truly "regal" as she enters? Does the audience grasp and adhere to its own original perceptions of this young lady, or have their perceptions already been corrupted by the manufactured enthusiasms of the media, like the Elle editor.
Imagined Virtues
The Elle editor first praises Chelsea’s appearance, her natural but “regal” grace, but then in the next sentence, she switches from personal observation to Chelsea’s public stances on public matters, declaring that in spite of or because of Chelsea’s regality, she has fierce yet measured calling to “make the word a better place.”
Never mind the stale, hackneyed truism. The truth is that we have to display caution when we look at a famous person. Just the fact that they are famous is a check on honest thought. Think of Heisenberg's observation that the aspect of a thing, the ability to measure it, is changed by the very act of looking at it. You cannot read or see the opinions of other people at first sight. The stage play is not the real performance. In viewing famous people, all of us are awed hypocrites surrendering meekly to their superiority. Such overly lush, slavish, obsequious flattery such as the Elle editor is not simply ass kissing, it s a reckless and determined search for polyps. The Elle editor does not evince an inch of sincerity; any particle of inner honesty, any capacity for accurate perception, and the very lushness of her flattering, servile prose make us turn away from such a bogus concoction, trying very hard to hide our contempt. What the author has produced is merely is shameless, idolatrous bull shit. If you found this stuff on a sidewalk, you would need a garden hose to get rid of it.
This is prose written by someone on their knees. It is the product of a debased mind. Reading this bit of prose is like read a vacation brochure, the prating of endless desert beaches, endless martinis, attentive and thoughtful service, evening where handsome dance teams swirl tier way across the dance floor. It is clear from Elle, that Chelsea already has followers, callow people who have already assumed extreme attitudes of worshipful submission,
Do we really know anything of her inner character, the productive capacity of Chelsea’s mental activity, her ability to overcome of obstacles overcome faults and bad habits, her ability to work on in spite of fatigue and pain? Does she truly have any inner grace? Does she really have a nature that that sympathizes with people rather than using them?
Beauty and the Best
For one thing, Chelsea is nota beauty. In my day, she would be seen as a “geek.” (I was also seen as a geek: an object of ridicule, the last to be chosen for teams, etc.) This observation is not meant to be unkind to her in any way Chelsea is earnest, intelligent, and very articulate.. As I hobble about on my cane, I am aware of the rule that no one should ever feel contempt for what people can’t help. If you were not born a beauty, that’s bad luck. It’s a misfortune, not a fault. I respect Chelsea for her youth and assume that she means well and when she says that she wants to do well in the world.
So to say that Chelsea is not a beauty in no way disqualifies her talents. The same could be said of Eleanor Roosevelt. Early in her life, her inner value was ignored because she lacked good looks. Her own personal appearance constantly humiliated her throughout her life. But Eleanor battled with her defects. The outstanding distinction of her public life rested in part on her struggle with her homeliness. Her own defects sharpened and honed her vision of those who were also ill favored, ignored, ridiculed, and downtrodden. Her own defects led to her strenuous exertions intended to help, the feeble, weak, and helpless in life, the wretched in life who desperately needed public support Think of Eleanor’s amazingly moral courage, her strong stance on lynching, her tireless efforts to obtain more rights for the black citizens of the country. Looks mattered little to mind set on correcting the injustices inflicted on ordinary people. As a woman, she was outstanding in her intrepidly, her contempt for softness, her obedience to principle – the rocks on which our country rests.
One hopes that Chelsea’s life would turn out in a similar way. We define out personalities partly by the reaction of others to it. I suspect that if your family is powerful and famous when your name comes tripping off everyone’s tongue, when vulgar admiration stops to gawk and drool when you enter a scene- how genuine is the reaction that you produce? Of course, false cue cards litter the way: be obliging, be familiar, be happy, be subservient, and follow the mob. Unfortunately, the mob follow where they have been led, but people in the mass are fickle; they change their habits, their language, manners and conventions without warning; and yet, for all their idealism, they retain their evil ways, firm and constant in wrongdoing, exhibiting only indifference towards genuine virtue.
Note
I have read the excerpts from the Elle article in which Chelsea simply produced predictable and mechanical quotes that merely parrot what her mother is already saying. There is not an atom of original thought in what Chelsea said. They display loyalty to her mother and little else. It is clear that she has become a puppet of her mother’s will. There is little glory in that.
The Elle editor admired Chelsea for being famous, influential and rich. Chelsea is employed by her parents. NBC paid her $600,000 a year for three years, and she gets $75,000 for each speech she gives. One must wonder what politics will do to Chelsea: what harm they will wreak on her integrity, her independence and originality, her ability to resist, mould, refashion, and stand apart.
As the elections approach the question looms. Do we really want to elect phantoms as our leaders? Do we really want to worship creatures who have been created by chiefly by favorable publicity, creatures that are enamored of its own vaporings, addicted to drinking their own bath water?
Already the massive political cataracts of a coming election are thundering down. Mawkish and dishwaterly people, ignorant zealots -- all discovered a fresh purpose: the lure of raw power. Caught up by the current fads and opportunities, they are being pulled over the brink of truthfulness and decency and principle, to plummet end over end into the boiling turmoil of blind, underhanded will, dishonesty, ignorance, malice, perversity, and greedy self-seeking that is already lodged at the bottom.
The question is, do we really want to elect phantoms as our leaders? Do we really want to worship creatures who have been created by chiefly by favorable publicity that is enamored of its own vaporings, endlessly drinking its own bath water?
This would ignore great hazards. Politics is one of the numberless ways for human beings to behave like imbeciles. Politics is the spectacle of people trying to get elected by promising people more than they can perform. The less some people know, the more they are eager to pronounce on matters beyond their capacity. Elections are always the refuge of the mediocre and the commonplace. The mob, it seems, never tires of the ignoble.
Amid today’s turmoil, it pays us to remember this -- that great ideas come from lonely souls isolated in their suffering