Why I don't care about celebrities

[Harryprice]

I've never had heroes, for as long as I can remember. The celebrity culture we live in leaves me cold. And here is why.

I regard everyone who is a great success in life as basically just lucky. For every successful person there are probably thousands who could just as easily do what they did, maybe better. But those others were simply never in the right place at the right time.

While I respect successful people but I don't admire them. Luck is random, it can affect anyone. I see no reason to praise or laud the lucky.

In fact, the people I really admire are those who could have been successful but weren't. They have to live modest lives knowing they could have been rich and famous but for bad luck. Most manage to soldier on regardless and in that way earn my admiration.

[skbuncks]

Couldn't agree more with the first part of your statement. As for the final part...

In fact, the people I really admire are those who could have been successful but weren't. They have to live modest lives knowing they could have been rich and famous but for bad luck. Most manage to soldier on regardless and in that way earn my admiration.

...I don't respect people just for getting through life, it takes a bit more than that for me. In fact, I don't really respect anyone I don't know and even then it won't be for any particular achievements they have made but rather how they have handled adverse situations or just how they deal with people/family/friends etc.

skb

[Harryprice]

Couldn't ...I don't respect people just for getting through life, it takes a bit more than that for me. In fact, I don't really respect anyone I don't know and even then it won't be for any particular achievements they have made but rather how they have handled adverse situations or just how they deal with people/family/friends etc.

skb

I guess that's fair. It depends where you stand on the idea of 'wasted talent'. I used to worry about how talent was wasted, with highly intelligent people doing simple jobs, for instance. It's easy to see in any work place. But it doesn't bother me now. In nature, how many animal lives are 'sacrificed' just so that a species can carry on? Count how many ducklings you see on a pond in spring. How many survive to become ducks by winter? Just about enough for a stable population! So lots of talented people must be 'sacrificed' just so that one or two can do something truly remarkable. Whatever we think of ourselves, we are still part of nature.

[Tony Williams]

It really depends why people are celebrities, doesn't it?

In the distant past, it used to be down to an accident of birth, but peerages and royalty don't do it for me.

Then it was down to genuine achievements; famous composers, authors, scientists, explorers etc. That's fine by me - I regard such achievements with respect (athough not necessarily the people who achieved them - that would depend on their personalities).

Then celebrity became steadily diluted by being applied to such as pop stars and footballers. It got worse still when applied to footballers' wives.

A few years ago it hit the pits with shows like Big Brother, in which people became celebrities because they were stupid and total rubbish at everything. It deeply saddened me to read that the primary ambition among adolescents (according to a poll at the time) was to become famous. Not, you understand, to do anything to justify becoming famous, but just to be a celebrity for its own sake.

"Celebrity" has become so debased that it's now a term of contempt as far as I'm concerned.

[Croydon Bob]

I agree with all of you. Group hug!

[tolman]

The primary reason I don't care about the latest generations of nonentity celebrities is that I have very limited knowledge of who on earth they are.
If I did know, I probably still wouldn't care, but ignorance is a fairly good first defence.

I don't watch 'popular' TV, and the TV I do watch is effectively all timeshifted on a PVR, so I skip though any adverts that might have trailers in.

To the extent I know anything, it's pretty patchy - I might have heard a name and even picked up an association with what they're supposed to be famous for, but have no idea what they look or sound like, etc.

Though why should I care even if I was aware of them? Would they care about me?

I might be temporarily sad if some actually talented person I like (or at least, like the work of) dies unpleasantly, (having just bought some CDs to replace long-lost LPs, I'm having a bit of delayed self-indulgent melancholy about Warren Zevon) but liking their music (or whatever) doesn't give me a personal relationship with them.

[Tony Williams]

I might be temporarily sad if some actually talented person I like (or at least, like the work of) dies unpleasantly, (having just bought some CDs to replace long-lost LPs, I'm having a bit of delayed self-indulgent melancholy about Warren Zevon) but liking their music (or whatever) doesn't give me a personal relationship with them.

Absolutely. I remember a visit to Oxford in the 1970s, during which I planned to pick up a copy of the latest novel by my then-favourite author (an American). I dropped into what was then the Paperback Shop (now a part of Blackwell's, I think) and discovered that by pure coincidence she was in the shop as a part of a UK book-signing tour. A small queue of people waited to talk to her. I picked up a copy of the book from the shelves and went to pay for it. The assistant was amazed; "don't you want to speak to her and get it signed?" She asked. "No, I just want to read it," I replied.

That's always been my attitude. I really don't care what my favourite authors are like as people, and have no interest in meeting them or reading about them. I just want to read their books!

[skbuncks]

Absolutely. I remember a visit to Oxford in the 1970s, during which I planned to pick up a copy of the latest novel by my then-favourite author (an American)...

An American? Never heard of her, although I suppose it's not too strange a name for a girl.

skb

[alfonso-the]

Being at the right place at the right time helps but the person has to make some sort of effort with their 'luck' to get to the place where they are now. What would of happened if 'Katie Price' i.e. 'Jordan' decided, a few years ago, to stay in bed all day? (It is unfortunate she she did not take this course of action!).

[Harryprice]

Being at the right place at the right time helps but the person has to make some sort of effort with their 'luck' to get to the place where they are now. What would of happened if 'Katie Price' i.e. 'Jordan' decided, a few years ago, to stay in bed all day? (It is unfortunate she she did not take this course of action!).

That's still luck. She was 'lucky' in that she made a decision to do something that proved popular. If a singer composes a song and it happens to reflect the mood of the country, it might get to number one in the charts. Exactly the same song released a year later, when the zeitgeist has moved on, might get nowhere.

[kayle]

Science boring, footballers' wives exciting. supply and demand...

[PaulW99]

What really smacked my gob was when they started declaring relatives of slebs as slebs themselves. Haven't watched much TV since then.

[Bob Leggitt]

What a great thread.

There is an element of luck on the path to fame I believe, but I reckon the defining ingredient is confidence - or perhaps more accurately, self-importance. People definitely appear to envision themselves into the limelight, and today, when what once passed for gross delusion can be regarded as a perfectly valid claim to fame, that's more possible than ever.

I've known some amazingly talented people who've remained in obscurity, and others with far less real talent, who either were (moderately) famous, or later became famous. A sense of self-importance (mixed with some intolerance, refusal to accept failure, etc) was what, for me, set the 'high achievers' apart. That said, there are some people with great talent who simply don't want celebrity. Just as there are those who want fame for its own sake, without the hassle of having to justify it, there are those who want to do creative or valuable things for their own sake, without the privacy invasion.

What additionally stands behind the increasing blandness and content-free nature of today's celebrity is that much of society doesn't make up its own mind and is thus prone to cultural exploitation. Much of public opinion is formed by proxy, by a relatively small number of influential people, most of whom are basing their judgement on whatever best serves their personal welfare. There's a very large body of people
who'll act upon the instructions of these influential voices. For example, whatever Simon Cowell says is good, a given section of the population will buy - even if it contributes to nothing but the power of the Cowell empire. Equally, a tabloid editor will offer up an (often quite obviously flawed) personal opinion, but within hours you can sit on a train, listen to people talking, and find that this opinion appears to have become 'fact'. People are brought up to accept what they're taught, rather than to think, and many never grow out of that. The entertainment world exploits this state of affairs, and in many areas is now little different from religion in the way it's managed and perpetrated. Most celebs are worshipped because the worshippers are conditioned to worship them, and don't think hard enough to question it.

I do care about celebs, but no more than I care about anyone else.

[Harryprice]

Much of public opinion is formed by proxy, by a relatively small number of influential people, most of whom are basing their judgement on whatever best serves their personal welfare. There's a very large body of people who'll act upon the instructions of these influential voices.

I agree. It's intersting to see what happens as a news item is breaking, on TV for instance. The first comments from reporters or 'experts' often hold sway for a long time, in spite of what later emerges. There is something to be said for being the first person to comment on an event!