There are few things that induce schadenfreude quite so effectively as seeing a rather undistinguished person elevated to the stature of national treasure simply because he hadn't the skill or wit to get himself out of what his daring got him into.
Hard that may be, but it's true. It's a truth that nobody would bother to point out if so many people hadn't overreacted so hysterically. If the consensus reaction was something along the lines of "he fucked up, they be dead, and that sucks", I would go along with that and say no more. But when we start hearing people talk about a tragedy of near-mythic proportion, I for one have a hard time resisting the temptation to howl "oh, come ON", and point out what everybody already knows.
The celebrity issue is one I've never really understood. For one thing, I've never paid much attention: I hear the names, but there are few I could put a face to, or know anything about (it is possible to insulate oneself to some degree). Second, I've been forced by work to associate with a number of celebrities, and my experience was that practically everything is untrue, that these people are for the most part spoiled, whiny, nasty, snots that deserve a good spanking more than anything else. Of course, a lot of them can be very "nice", even self-deprecating, especially when the attention is on them and they are getting their way. When you see them thwarted you see the truth, and the people who write about and photograph celebrities (knowing where their bread is buttered) seldom mention those moments.
In short, I am inclined to assume the worst, which probably does at times lead me to unjust assumptions.
I've argued this at times with Cobalt, and I'm curious to know how you feel. My observation is that celebrity-identification - and the tendency to assume that celebrities actually possess the qualities that their crafted image suggests - tends to be much stronger in women than in men. Do you agree or disagree, and why? |
