T A B L E+T A L K Should K-12 public education be deregulated or privatized? Join the debate in Education. D A I L Y+Q U O T E Warning: This program may cause nausea. R E C E N T L Y The lion in winter By Vivienne Walt Africa needs a leader, not a legend (12/17/97) Terry Nichols' judgment day By Ros Davison It looks like he'll be found guilty -- but probably will escape the death penalty (12/16/97) The white negro By Joan Walsh Governor Moonbeam is back. And he has black Oakland's vote (12/15/97) Still in the balance By Mark Hertsgaard The global warming treaty may save Al Gore, but what about the rest of us? (12/12/97) The graveyards of hope By Jonathan Broder Why it took us so long to believe that the new "great hope" of Africa may be responsible for terrible massacres (12/11/97) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		the fame economy - - - - - - - - page 2 of 2 Mother Teresa didn't endorse products, but she was pretty famous. Let's look at someone like Mother Teresa. She didn't go around endorsing acrylic juice cups and her funeral got less coverage on TV than Princess Diana, whose face appeared on every conceivable commercial magazine cover. That is why we have seen a continual rise in the relative fame of entertainers and a continual fall in the relative fame of politicians, military leaders and preachers. The issue today is whether or not money can be made from their fame. Did Latrell Sprewell diminish or enhance his fame by throttling his basketball coach and being thrown off the team? He is a case of someone who was so puffed up by his fame that he thought he could get away with what he did. His fame loosened the constraints on him. I think he's sorry he lost money and got punished. But it's not clear how much money he's actually going to lose. His year-long suspension may be partly overturned in arbitration. He could play in Europe, and after that, receive a new contract. So will he really lose that much money? It's hard to say. If he plays well in Europe for a year and then gets a new contract, he could end up richer and more famous than before. So Sprewell might have done himself some good in the fame game. Sure. Everyone is talking about him now. And frankly, I think a lot of people admire what he did. While many people themselves wouldn't attack their bosses the way Sprewell did, I think there's a secret glee that comes out when we see someone act out what we sometimes fantasize about. No matter how much people may condemn it publicly, I think there's a huge inner sentiment that says it was just great to see someone pay back an abusive character. And that sentiment enhances Sprewell's fame. Unless or until he destroys himself. That's one thing that fame does to people: It destroys perspective, that sense of being like other people. Magic Johnson was another example of the same phenomenon. I think he had a sense of having won so many victories and so much adulation that he could simply get away with anything and still have marriage or never catch a disease. His fame created an air of invulnerability around him which left him with the impression that he was not human in the way everyone else is. You say mass media is the chief engine of the economics of fame. Do you see the Internet making people famous? The main thing it does right now is to make more famous people who are already famous through some other medium. For example, a TV star might have a Web site that fans can visit to see more pictures and find out biographical details. But I think at some point people will start to become independently famous through the Internet. The ultimate in the globalization of fame. Yes, but there's a downside. With your picture being broadcast around the world, whether via the Internet or television, the possibility of anonymity is gone forever. It's like the Midas touch. People want fame and strive to attain it. But once they have it, it becomes a curse. Princess Diana. Absolutely. Diana spent about a quarter of a million dollars a year on her appearance. She assiduously courted the media, gave interviews and generally went to great lengths to make herself a public image. But once it happened, she bore the costs. The paparazzi trailed after every moment in her life. They even put a camera in the private gym where she worked out. The person who ran the gym made an arrangement with photographers, and they filmed her working out. So even in her own private gym, she did not have peace of mind or privacy. Are there examples of celebrities who have handled their fame well? Yes. Jimmy Stewart is one. He seems to have led a pretty normal life. But he is the exception rather than the rule. There are also celebrities who simply disappear from public view. J.D. Salinger is one of those, as is Thomas Pynchon. In the case of Salinger, the media view his reclusiveness as a kind of insanity, which shouldn't be surprising. The media want stars to expose themselves because that's how the media make their money. When any star refuses to play by the media's rules, they turn against him. Salinger became famous through basically one book. Could he have achieved the same kind of fame had he written "Catcher in the Rye" today? Probably not. Modern fame creates very high expectations, both with the public and the famous. For most people, writing one good book in their lives would be an enormous achievement. But with the fame that now accompanies the publication of such a book, the expectation all around is for another book, and then another. That's one big problem that famous people have. Sooner or later, they peak. Yet they have developed very high expectations. They are then in a position where they're subject to intense scrutiny, but they can't do any better. They can only get worse. It's a prescription for depression. Fame is bad for your health? Celebrities have a lot of health problems. In many cases, there is a tendency toward early suicide. Celebrities also suffer from high rates of alcoholism and stress. Fame is a double-edged sword. On average, it's not very good for your health. Do you believe, with Andy Warhol, that everyone will get their 15 minutes of fame? Warhol was an interesting and, in my view, underrated thinker on fame. He used to say, only half-jokingly, that the people he envied most were those like Marshall Field, people who had their names on department stores and were better known than any artists. But Warhol was wrong in one critical respect -- that immortal fame would disappear. That's not true. We still have many realms, such as the Hall of Fame for baseball or rock 'n' roll, where long-lasting recognition is still produced. I think Warhol is correct in arguing that ephemeral celebrity has risen. But it has not been at the expense of immortal fame. The two rise together. But the requirements of such fame has changed. If you look at stamps in the 19th century, just about the only faces you saw on them were presidents and generals. Now we have stamps with Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, Duke Ellington and Marilyn Monroe on them. These are the people whose fame is going to make money for the U.S. Postal Service. Celebrity is now a commercial commodity, and the biggest stars are those who have the power to earn more money for others. Getting back to your economic theory, fame has its blue-chip commodities and its junk bonds. That's right. I predict that 50 years from now, no one will remember the Spice Girls. But 300 years from now, people will still be listening to James Brown and Elvis Presley -- and pay them reverence by buying products that carry their image. They are more than performers and artists. They're good investments. SALON | Dec. 18, 1997 Jonathan Broder is Salon's regular Washington correspondent.