A group member at the Creative Genius Society (CGS) wrote her college thesis on “The Femme Fatale.” And in the group there was discussion around some of the subtypes.The femme fatale was finely speciated. The discussion for me though converged on a single point: was there a femme fatale who was sympathetic?. That is,was there a femme fatale who by nature was not necessarily sociopathic or evil, but who, under pressure had made poor choices which may have been made from circumstances that made the errant choice seem unavoidable, leading to a lifestyle of deviancy?

This type would be distinguished from the Mata Hari “hard boiled” type, who enjoys the successes of her evil acts. But so as not to limit this discussion to females, an analogy occurred that helps somewhat with this differentiation. The analogy pertains to a group of seemingly ordinary males occurring in a popular work of fiction. The hope is that by extrapolation we could illustrate that some of these characters were sympathetic in some sense - at least In the abstract. And that there is hope for some pathologicals of both sexes. It is also my intent in this essay to competently argue my main point, which is centered on the theme of redemption. Is it possible to achieve? Is there a deviant type like the Femme Fatale, or the Hommes Fatale, for whom there is hope?

Even if we exclude hope for the Mata Hari, baring some Saul like revelation - knocking her blind for three days; it would seem that redemption is possible for these sympathetic pathologicals who are pathological to a fatal and massively destructive degree, but redemption involves the bitter pills full confession and punishing penances and sincere desire to change. Sadly, most of the characters in this analogy that i use died without the opportunity for reform - although opportunities presented them selves all along the way. .

The analogy is here from a popular book called: “A simple Plan.”

This book was one I found to be one of the more interesting books in the popular venues. It was made into a movie. I don't know how I came upon the book - I normally don't take an interest in literature about crime. But this book was riveting. Over the years, as I processed the story, it became a symbolic for what I see - in my more pessimistic moods - as a declining set of moral values in the culture.

[A culture that sees a public display of the ten commandments, a rather generic and time tested set of rules, as vestigial, anachronistic, and symbolic of religious jingoism. Surprising since t0 commanments form the basis for English Common law. And, kids today are denied access to them in a very real sense.]

The book was very well written. The prose had a stark quality and every word contributed to painting a picture of the self centered thought process of a latent sociopath. The book illustrated how this individual brings out the character deficits in others by making his logic seem inexorable...and subsequent events, inevitable. The book becomes a symbol of the dangers of “group think.” And I say this because the unusual set of circumstances applied a unique temptation to a group of seemingly ordinary people. That temptation brought out their latent character deficits. A simple wrong choice and what seems a sympathetic response to a temptation - led to murder and mayhem and hopeless condemnation for all. .

I will remind the reader of the basic plot which was simply that a single engine aircraft crashes in the woods outside of a small town resulting in the pilots death. In the beginning of the book, a small group of men go out to the woods to hunt - in winter. They happen upon the plane and they investigate the crash scene. They find the pilot, and the temptation is also found in the back of the plane:a big sack filled with cash. A “pot of gold,” which offered to eliminate all of their financial woes for an eternity. They decide to keep the money and contain the secret amongst themselves. They were seduced by the notion posed by the more dominant personality, that the cash was probably 'drug money.' A rationalization used avoid considering common law, and the common decency of reporting the accident.

They come back the next day, and post a look out at the edge of s snowfield, while the rest retrieve the cash. Murphy's law, and chaos theory is proved correct, as an old man on a ski mobile happens upon the lookout. He spots the crashed plane. He says he's going to check it out, and then the look out panics and, strikes him, knocking him unconscious.

The others come out of the woods dragging the cash, and come upon the mishap, an accident, a violent blow induced by panic. The leader who seduced the rest of the group to go against their instincts suggests the only solution is to finish the old man off, and make it appear like an accident.

But some questions arise here? Is this the only solution? Was it “necessary” to do this?

No. they could have attempted to revive the old man, and explain the reason for the panic.

They could have involved him in the split, and if he was un-sympathetic, they could have killed him after determining if he was sympathetic or not. Or, they could chosen what would be seen the as the only right option: that is. return the money, and suffer the consequences of the assault and care for the old mans wounds. There might have been a way to say that they changed their minds about the theft...and that the theft had not occurred yet. There was another possibility too: they could say the old man was simply wrong in seeing them and get away from him. But the writer conveys the sense that murdering the old man was the only option at that point,

On their return after killing the old man, a policeman sees them on the return path home. The group manages to fool him into thinking they were just there to hunt. But, they know the policeman saw them, and knew them, and that he now knows *they* were in that location. They could be connected to being at that area, when a coroner later fixes the time of the old mans death and the authorities discover the crashed plane and missing money. They decide as a group, that the policeman “must” be killed? But is that true? But the prior options still apply, and the others could have revolted and turned against the dominant personality. The decent into hell does not stop here.

One person in the group tells his wife about the money, the leader feels she will let it slip elsewhere in the town – he kills both. Eventually he kills his own brother feeling that the brother will fold under police questioning, Finally, his own wife passes what could be marked bills in a supermarket, and so he kills a store clerk, and a woman who happens on the scene.

But at what point is there a way out? Where is the redemption for these group members or the group leader, or his compatriots in crime. There is only one redemption at each point – and that is, admitting one crime, and suffering consequences of that crime and all of the others...but – there comes a point though where that seems impossible, and the descent seems inevitable.That I think is the major point I got from the book. There's a point where another crime must be committed to avoid exposure of the prior crime. And – with each crime, the leader and group are displaced from their natural selves with a cover identity – each word becomes a lie, and the original nature is a replaced with a false self, a cover self with multiple layers of false self to be added.

I suppose what I am illustrating in citing this book is how it is seemingly ordinary people can be corrupted by what a appears to be a single wrong and almost sympathetic choice. And I do mean sympathetic in the sense that we can all see the temptation, and the group pressures applied by the sociopathic leader – the author has brought out the character deficits in the whole group. Imagine one of them objecting to the theft itself? What is the pressure brought to bare on him? It is there we are forced to wonder about ourselves, what would we do under these circumstances, because even that one objector would have difficulty objecting - fearing his fate. But his complicity is not mitigated for his cowardice and his failure to chose his associates wisely. Over time his consciousness would have revealed the latent dangers in his associations.

The book illustrates many things: the dangers of “group think,” temptation, pride, narcissism, sociopathy. and rationalization. Perhaps too, to the extent there is identification with the temptation, there is a reflection on a general lack of cultural and religious values. At no time did the concept of sin or evil come up. But the behavior of the group, and the group leader, suggests evil in operation at every turn...and in the end, what we see is an evil nature displacing self more and more, with each failure to acknowledge wrong doing, Until at last, when the original self is displaced totally by something ugly. The soul cannot admit the original wrong doing, and covers itself with a layer of protection, in this case the second crime, and then another layer in the third crime to cover for both. In the end there is no redemption for these people. Just as there was no redemption for those who perpetrated the mass murders at Auschwitz and Treblinka or for those who killed millions in gulags in soviet Russia. The process is not unusual, these are just dramatic examples.

But when we consider that some people are actually reinforced by these sort of evil acts, the thought is chilling: people such as serial killers, who don't even qualify as pathological or sympathetic...or cold blooded Killers such as hit men. By comparison the characters in
“A Simple Plan” seem mundane. But in one sense the greatest danger of such choices is in the mundane, and ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances such as in "A simple plan" in which there is reflected a kind of narcissism, and self importance. Ordinary people who do dastardly things. They have not only the crime or infraction to cover for, but they must also cover for their self perception as “good people.”

We see this type of denial frequently in the body politic:

President Nixon's presidency was doomed for his first decision to cover up the Watergate break in..and the result was a cover for that cover up - leading to his threatened impeachment, and ultimate resignation. He , destroyed what was, arguably, a stellar presidency.

Bill Clinton's manipulations of Monica Lewinsky in order to protect himself in the Paula Jones case led to his actual impeachment. And most recently I read of the money manager Madoff, defrauding thousands, and when sentenced he says : “ I dug myself a hole.” He did, and his only hope of for redemption is being exposed for every infraction. He was. But if he was not exposed, would he have confessed to any one of his fraudulent acts? Most likely he would not.

Wiping the Slate Clean

When I was a child I would regularly go to confession. This was common practice as a Catholic – it is less of a practice now. We would go into a booth on Saturdays and tell our sins. The priest would give us a penance. The penance was a series of prayers, and as a result of saying them, our “souls” would be wiped clean. The emphasis was on the mystical absolution resulting from penance. There are even more hard line Catholics today who have a cynical view of the practice. They see it as vestigial in this Narcissistic Post Modern era.

The reasoning is, “why should I tell a sinner my sins...who is he?” Despite the flaw in that argument which is that there is nothing in the orthodoxy that suggests the priest is not a sinner, there is a practical advantage to confession: the likelihood of “hole digging” is less, because consciousness is drawn to the sin, due to penance on a weekly basis.

Confession was a requirement before communion on Sunday, But it was a way of keeping on top of moral slips, and the practice was also reinforced by the Catholic community, Confession was like a car wash for the soul. A ritual that reminded us of the line, and how we fail to tow it, and too often cross it.

Confession is the only serious hope of redemption, and so is penance, whether it is legal, or spiritual. And even though there is little hope for the Mata Harri type femme fatale, or our sociopathic friend in A simple Plan, spiritual hope for the wayward women and men who make bad choices comes from consciouness of the sin and feeling sorrow, making amends. That is the hope for the mundane pathological behavior, these people are in danger of loosing themselves completely.

Forgiveness only exists in confession or legal consequences. Digging the hole must end, climbing out and redemption only lies in consequences, and dare I say it, spiritual repentance. And so it is with the femme fatale, and her male analogue.

When the first thought is about “me.” and action in this world is motivated only by self interest, and the culture is so waffling and relative in it's most basic mores, the worst behavior is tangentially reinforced. There is not enough firm moral education. No input into the super ego.

I was recently involved with a woman who had many of the traits of the femme fatale. In fact I still feel her consequences in my life, and so do others. I remember when we were friendly her daughter asked about God, and this woman said to her: 'well some people believe this, and some people believe that' and so, the beat goes on, as that was the extent of her Sunday School. This individual impressed me as normal at first. But I found out the hard way, that beneath the veneer she projected over the internet, there was a vileness in her that matched the literary archetype of the femme fatale. In retrospect, considering her child's moral education, as lacking as it was, I am afraid we can look forward to another generation of Femme Fatales and Hommes Fatales as it would not surprise me if people like this are increasingly common. Is there hope for her? I am afraid that the way out for her is the same as for all the types I have just discussed.

Copyrights to Toylanders Press international (Gary Stone) 2009.