Charm: The Elusive Enchantment
Joseph Epstein
Lyons Press (October 2018)
A subject that “manages to carry on quite nicely without the aid of a locked-in, ironclad definition”
I have read and reviewed most of Joseph Epstein’s earlier books, many of them anthologies of previously published essays, and thus was curious to know why he wrote this book on what he characterizes as “elusive enchantment.” With regard to his examination of charm, he observes, “Like goodness, happiness, and love — three other such grand subjects — charm manages to carry on quite nicely without the aid of a locked-in, ironclad definition, and I shall do so.” There seems to be no such definition. He wrote this book to answer several questions that have always intrigued me. What is charm? What is it not? Who has it or has had it? Do we need it? If so, why?
As I worked my way through this book, I was again reminded of an old bromide that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That is to say, a determination that is inherently — and inevitably — subjective: whoever and whatever enchants me possesses charm. Epstein cites several film stars who are perceived as charming (Cary Grant onscreen) as well as those who are not (Grant offscreen). These are his opinions. I agree with some, not with others, as will those who read his book. We agree on Audrey Hepburn and Dean Martin, for example., but not on Tallulah Bankhead.
Here are five of Epstein’s key points:
o A celebrity who is charming in public does not guarantee being charming anywhere else.
o Authentic charm does not have an on/off switch.
o Charm can be possessed but not contained.
o It is by nature subjective, in the eyes of the beholder.
o Young charmers often become old bores.
Now some brief excerpts:
o Charm can make the world seem “a brighter, grander, lovelier, more amusing, yes, charming place. Charm drains life of its monotony, drabness, darkness.”
o “Charm, like goodness, becomes ingrained. When it works, there is no defense against it. Not, when it is motiveless, need there be.”
o “If you think you are charming, there is an excellent chance that you probably aren’t.”
o Rogues such as Alcibiades, Casanova, and Lord Byron indicate that charm “has its dangers, sometimes to those upon whom it casts its spell, sometimes quite as much and even more to those who possess it.”
o Performances such as when Louis Armstrong sang several of Duke Ellington’s greatest songs, playing trumpet along with the Ellington orchestra, offers “great, splendid magnificent stuff [and] also happens to be, at no extra charge, utterly charming.” I think the same can also be said of other performances such as when Shirley Temple and Bill Robinson dance on the stairs in the film The Little Colonel and Judy Garland and Barbra Streisand sing their duet “Happy Days Are Here Again” on television. These occur, of course, in contrived situations but are charming nonetheless…at least to me.
In his concluding paragraph, Joseph Epstein suggests, “The absence of charm is a substantial subtraction from the roster of life’s pleasures.” I agree with him that charm is an “elusive enchantment,” that it “manages to carry on quite nicely without the aid of a locked-in, ironclad definition.” Naturally charming people enchant rather than manipulate, and do so with effortless style and grace. They radiate civility. Yes, they are among “life’s pleasures.” And indeed, our need of them is greater now than ever before.