To be or not to be: that is the question

[Gruto]

Whether we'd do them a favour or not by attempting to establish their character, well, I didn't know any of them; I wouldn't know

Groot, read the DoW's Memoirs, and you'll discover that Herr Horse Kleidung had an elder English brother

Thinking about Brando, I will have to quote Nietzsche again: "I am not a man, I am dynamite!"

[alden]

Michael, I have just read the introduction again, and I realize that I have misunderstood our starting point. Our subject seems to be "the thing beyond the social world that fuels expression". If that is correct, it's a difficult one, I think. We are addressing die Urkraft or the Will to Power. Even Freud and Nietzsche had trouble to explain what was going on

We may never know God’s plan or devices, but we can learn from what we observe.

To illustrate the method in the madness, let’s take the examples of Brando and Agnelli. What I see in both men is imposing physical presence. They were both (through most of their lives) extremely fit (Sean Connery and Cary Grant are two other examples.). That should teach us, as if it were not self evident, that getting to the gym, proper dieting, and grooming are of fundamental importance if we wish too improve our Style.

If we dig deeper we will see that the lithe, svelte fitness that is Stylish in these men contrasts greatly with the exaggerated musculature of a body builder like Arnold “Conan” Schwarzenegger or S. Stallone (who are not Stylish men.) In this regards it is interesting to note that Connery, Grant and Agnelli were all swimmers. And swimming promotes long smooth muscle development that is elegant.

So before any of you order another suit, maybe it would be a good idea (if Style is really your goal) to lose the weight, join your local swimming club, get in shape and then and only then, go to the tailors.

This is an ounce of an example in what must be tons of clues and tips we can pick up by observing the Stylish men of our time.

More to follow….

Groot, read the DoW's Memoirs, and you'll discover that Herr Horse Kleidung had an elder English brother

And that is why we might consider him stylish but not Stylish. Clothes are an all too easy escape from reality. And Windsor systematically sought to escape and hide from reality.

Stylish men, on the other hand, give the impression of being impressive carnivores when it comes to reality. Not only do they eat up life, they modify and modulate the reality around them because they have the ability to radiate. Suggested reading for this lesson, and more Stylish use of time as compared to the DoW's memoirs, is "On The Technique of Acting" by Michael Chekhov nephew of Anton Chekhov, one of the greatest actors of the last century, and acting coach to the stars (including but not limited to Gary Cooper.) In this book Chekhov gives specific exercises for actors that teach the secret of presence, of developing the power of radiating that all great actors possess. These exercises are extremely valuable for anyone interested in Style even if you have no plans to do Lear next season.

Cheers

[uppercase]

There's an awful lot of meat in Alden's 2 posts here.

As a matter of fact the subject of Style, we are trying to address in this section of the LL, has nothing to do with clothes, or fashion, or fabrics and certainly nothing to do with rules.

Let’s have a chaste talk about Style… for a change.

A man who is fortunate enough to possess Style has it in jeans and a torn T-shirt, in a 3pc suit, in his dead Uncle’s bathrobe and stark naked. Is this clear? And he is equally Style abundant in each of these kinds of dress despite himself and for his entire life.

Let’s learn to let Style happen to us.


Cheers

Michael Alden

[uppercase]

I believe that the reason conversations quickly drop dead in their tracks on this subject of Style is that it is too difficult to address.

Style is what we're after, certainly, but it's easier to talk about tailors, personalities and buttonholes.

How do we talk about Style? I don't know myself. I find that I have curiously little to say about it when I do try to think about it. Style just is, it seems to me, the sum of everything a man is.

Sometimes I think that it is best to turn off the internets, with all of its noise, and simply to keep one's own counsel. Perhaps it's best to take a sabbatical, to live, eat, dress, read, work and develop in a more quiet, personal and introspective manner, I say.

Certainly Alden is one of the very few, if only, voice on the internets who talks about Style in a meaningful and relevant way.

[alden]

Style is what we're after, certainly, but it's easier to talk about tailors, personalities and buttonholes.

UC there are thousands of examples, but here is one:

“Getting down to a scratch handicap is what we're after, but it is easier to talk about new technology carbon graphite irons, the swing of Arnold Palmer and the latest generation of golf balls.”

A lot of Style duffers have the golf cart before the horse. This is essentially what I am trying to point out. Rather than go out and spend hours in practice and study it is easier to buy another golf club, the latest issue of XYZ magazine where all the secrets are revealed, a new sail, a new lens for the camera, a new saddle, a new set of gears for the bike, marry a new woman, join a new club, find new friends, take up Yoga, buy a new hormone enhanced after shave…..and it is easier to go out and buy a new suit on Savile Row.

Trillions are spent in marketing every year to convince us that anything we desire can be bought. The charlatans can be found on TV, in magazines, in books, chats, forums ready to sell us anything and everything. But Style, like most things of true and enduring value, cannot be purchased.

Having attained, or at least getting closer, to maturity some of us in the sadder but wiser set will advise young men to get their Style horse (and why not six horses) in front of their carts.

Style just is, it seems to me, the sum of everything a man is.

And we can study the various elements that make up the whole, and put what we learn into practice. That is what a student of Style would do.

We are in the process of identifying and cataloguing a set of characteristics and traits common in Stylish men here, in the “real” Style forum, and with this data we can draw a number of conclusions about what creates the mysterious attractive force we desire. Few of us will attain it, but we should have some fun trying and improving.

Cheers

M Alden

[Gruto]

What's the difference between Style and charisma? I don't see a big difference. Both phenomenons seem to have effects like seduction, admiration, and devotion. Whatever separates them, we might look at Style or charisma as a spellbinding outcome of several instruments playing together like voice, face expression, eyes, body language, knowledge, personality, presence, and clothes. I'm not sure that there is only one (hidden) thing that explains it all. Like Peer Gynt, we will have to realize that an onion doesn't have a kernel:

[Peer Gynt addresses the onion]

I'm going to peel you now, my good Peer!
You won't escape either by begging or howling.
[Takes an onion and pulls off layer after layer.]
...

What an enormous number of sheats!
Isn't the kernel soon coming to light?
I'm blessed if it is! To the innermost centre,
It's nothing but sheaths - each smaller and smaller -
Nature is witty!

[Henrik Ibsen, PEER GYNT, Act V, Sc.5]

[alden]

What's the difference between Style and charisma?

Charisma is a by product of Style. A man of Style will have charisma, but all charismatic men are not necessarily endowed with Style (Adolf Hitler is an example.)

I am also quite sure there is no one thing that explains Style or a formula that can be elaborated to reproduce its effects (more often than not formulas have the opposite effect.) But we can try to elucidate and study the attributes of Stylish men, and in drawing some conclusions about them, improve ourselves. It never hurts to expand one's learning and we do so by pushing the envelope, challenging the accepted, and using our imaginations.

I do not suppose Science will ever explain the universe, but today, what was considered unfathomable (things like the Big Bang etc) is studied because a few men had the ability to swim a few fathoms deeper than the rest.

Cheers

Michael Alden

[alden]

m not sure that there is only one (hidden) thing that explains it all. Like Peer Gynt, we will have to realize that an onion doesn't have a kernel:

[Peer Gynt addresses the onion]

I'm going to peel you now, my good Peer!
You won't escape either by begging or howling.
[Takes an onion and pulls off layer after layer.]
...

What an enormous number of sheats!
Isn't the kernel soon coming to light?
I'm blessed if it is! To the innermost centre,
It's nothing but sheaths - each smaller and smaller -
Nature is witty!

I hate to challenge Mr Ibsen (a favorite) but while you are peeling the onion you will come to realize that there are hundreds of varieties of onion; you will see that each one has its own shape, color and size from the diminutive but stylish light brown echalote to the more imposing red Tropea or white Gerratana. As you peel, your hands will feel the difference in the texture of the flesh of each onion; if you possess a minimum level of olfactive skill, you will learn that each variety has its own aroma; and if you sneak a few bites you will be confronted by a palate of flavors that is extraordinary, from bitter to fruit-like sweetness. So by the time you will have finished peeling the onion, if you are observant, even if nothing remains in your hand, something should remain in your brain.

Cheers

Michael Alden

[Gruto]

by the time you will have finished peeling the onion, if you are observant, even if nothing remains in your hand, something should remain in your brain.

[Costi]

by the time you will have finished peeling the onion, if you are observant, even if nothing remains in your hand, something should remain in your brain.

Nature is witty!

[storeynicholas]

Nature also sometimes makes our eyes water!
NJS

[Costi]

Back to Shakespeare:

What is your substance, whereof are you made,
That millions of strange shadows on you tend?
Since every one hath, every one, one shade,
And you but one, can every shadow lend.
Describe Adonis, and the counterfeit
Is poorly imitated after you;
On Helen's cheek all art of beauty set,
And you in Grecian tires are painted new:
Speak of the spring, and foison of the year,
The one doth shadow of your beauty show,
The other as your bounty doth appear;
And you in every blessed shape we know.
In all external grace you have some part,
But you like none, none you, for constant heart.

Sonnet LIII

The "constant heart" (kernel) is not physical, it is "the Shadow", as well as what holds them together. A Forest is all trees, with nothing but trees at its heart, so its "kernel" is at the same time the idea of "Tree", as well as all that would not exist with one tree and can only be there in a forest.