Writer's Block: Star struck
Jul. 22nd, 2010 04:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
omorka[Error: unknown template qotd]
What a silly question. That's what the definition of a celebrity is, isn't it - someone famous, i.e., someone who is recognized and gets attention? (Let's leave the money out of it for the moment - that's a capitalist artifact, since public attention and money are practically identical under our fscked-up economic system.) Whether they deserve it or not is irrelevant; if they didn't have it, they wouldn't be celebrities. Who writes these questions?
Let's back up a moment. A celebrity is just a person who got into the public limelight one way or another, usually via one of the traditional media - books, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, or movies. We might as well add the Internet now. Some of them got there by creating something noteworthy, like Joss Whedon, J. K. Rowling, or Dan Brown. (Note that I'm not passing judgement, positive or negative, on any of their bodies of work, merely pointing out that their producers/publishers and the public found it noteworthy.) Some of them got there by performing in something noteworthy (or multiple somethings), like Brad Pitt and Sigourney Weaver. Some of them got there by doing something noteworthy, like Chelsey "Sully" Sullenberger or Babe Ruth. And some of them bought fame (see above about capitalism making money and attention mutually exchangeable), like Paris Hilton.
None of these guarantee that these are fundamentally moral or admirable people. (No, not even Sullenberger. He became a hero by Doing His Job Right, Dammit. That makes him a damned good and well-prepared pilot, and a dutiful man, but that says nothing about the rest of his life.) Those are not the criteria by which celebrities are selected. Nor does it mean that these are fame-grubbing, camera-hogging, pleasure-seeking adult-children who haven't "earned" their fame (whatever that's supposed to mean). They're people, just like everyone else except for having a camera up in their face more often than the rest of us (and usually with more money). Their blogs and tweets are no more and no less likely to be witty, thoughtful, insightful, or banal than the general run of humanity's. No, they shouldn't be worshipped for it (well, okay, that's not quite right, but I'll keep my religious opinions out of this one), but neither should they be vilified, any more than a straight, white, able-bodied cis-man should be automatically castigated for his privilege. For the most part, this is just something that happens.
What a silly question. That's what the definition of a celebrity is, isn't it - someone famous, i.e., someone who is recognized and gets attention? (Let's leave the money out of it for the moment - that's a capitalist artifact, since public attention and money are practically identical under our fscked-up economic system.) Whether they deserve it or not is irrelevant; if they didn't have it, they wouldn't be celebrities. Who writes these questions?
Let's back up a moment. A celebrity is just a person who got into the public limelight one way or another, usually via one of the traditional media - books, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, or movies. We might as well add the Internet now. Some of them got there by creating something noteworthy, like Joss Whedon, J. K. Rowling, or Dan Brown. (Note that I'm not passing judgement, positive or negative, on any of their bodies of work, merely pointing out that their producers/publishers and the public found it noteworthy.) Some of them got there by performing in something noteworthy (or multiple somethings), like Brad Pitt and Sigourney Weaver. Some of them got there by doing something noteworthy, like Chelsey "Sully" Sullenberger or Babe Ruth. And some of them bought fame (see above about capitalism making money and attention mutually exchangeable), like Paris Hilton.
None of these guarantee that these are fundamentally moral or admirable people. (No, not even Sullenberger. He became a hero by Doing His Job Right, Dammit. That makes him a damned good and well-prepared pilot, and a dutiful man, but that says nothing about the rest of his life.) Those are not the criteria by which celebrities are selected. Nor does it mean that these are fame-grubbing, camera-hogging, pleasure-seeking adult-children who haven't "earned" their fame (whatever that's supposed to mean). They're people, just like everyone else except for having a camera up in their face more often than the rest of us (and usually with more money). Their blogs and tweets are no more and no less likely to be witty, thoughtful, insightful, or banal than the general run of humanity's. No, they shouldn't be worshipped for it (well, okay, that's not quite right, but I'll keep my religious opinions out of this one), but neither should they be vilified, any more than a straight, white, able-bodied cis-man should be automatically castigated for his privilege. For the most part, this is just something that happens.
