Fame-iness Meghan Daum

 

Summary

Meghan Daum begins the essay with her personal definition of being famous. For her famous people are known to all and they are easily recognized in the street. But she is amazed to know that people she has never heard of are celebrities today. She offers example of some famous people like Bill Clinton, Meryl Streep, and Sting. Ordinary people like her are interested in the lifestyles of famous people. They would feel very happy and could not help sharing with their friends if they saw a famous person buying things in supermarket. But Celebrities are not normal people. Celebrities do not go to supermarkets themselves. They do not buy their own things. They have their assistants do it for them. Nowadays anyone can easily be in the limelight- no one can guess about the appearance of celebrities in media. Daum develops the reverse indifference toward the celebrities of modern times. She states that people gradually tend to accept something unpleasant, but she never develops a liking for the famous people of these days. She is amazed to see people keeping interest in the so-called famous people.

In the past people had to work hard in order to become famous. The actors had to practice a lot in order to get success. The musicians had to play in clubs for no money. The access to media was not so easy owing to the limited media houses. Only hard work and dedication could provide them an opportunity to make their way to media. Thus, their fame was a product of their talents and hard work. And they could easily become a household name. But now the celebrities are product of media. They can never become popular among a large mass of people. They make their space among a very few people for a short duration.

Nowadays thanks to the advancement of technology, it is much easier for people to expose themselves to the masses. Media is free from the grip of certain institutions, and people have easy access to the means of mass communication. The YouTube, American Idol, and Myspace regime are providing new opportunities for genuinely talented people. But at the same time, they are giving much space to unworthy people too. This is the dangerous side of the democratization of fame.

People are gaining fame not based on their accomplishments, but on their ability to attract attention.  Stephen Colbert has coined a word called “truthiness,” meaning our tendency to believe in ideas irrespective of logic or evidence. For Daum this is happening in the area of fame too.  Perhaps our definition of celebrity has taken a similar path. Nowadays the charm of so many celebrities relies not on their achievements but on their ability to attract people's attention.

 Fame-iness is a punishment for both the audience and the celebrities. Actual fame requires talent, hard work and dedication. And so it brings a lot of satisfaction and pride to the celebrities. But fame-iness causes self-humiliation and punishment for the so called celebrities for compromising with the quality of their work. Moreover, the audience are also punished for they get nothing valuable after their involvement in the low quality of work. Thus, Daum wants us to stop paying attention to these unskilled and unworthy people.

Questions

1. According to Daum, What does it mean to be famous?

According to Daum being famous means being known to all. Famous people are easily recognized in the street. People feel happy when the see the celebrities in the street or supermarkets. But they cannot be found doing shopping. You love the famous people and are willing to see them. They are intelligent and inspiring personalities. However, she states that nowadays a crowd of untalented and boring people are gaining celebrity status.

2. How does Daum define a celebrity?

A celebrity is someone who you easily recognize in the street and who has made a great effort to gain popularity through his or her talent and hard work.

3. What does Daum mean in paragraph 7 when she says, “it’s pretty clear that it’s never been a worse time to be famous”?

Being a celebrity nowadays isn’t as valuable as it was in the past. Nowadays celebrities are known for their ridiculous stuff. She offers examples of some celebrities who have done nothing good that a celebrity is expected to do. Daum talks about the celebrities like Anna Nicole Smith and Lisa Marie Nowak who become famous not for any accomplishment but for scandals. Generally people get attracted towards the celebrities for they are supposed to be impressive personalities. But seeing these celebrities, people develop a sense of ‘celebrity repulsion’.

4. How does Daum see today’s celebrities as different from those of years ago? Does she see things as positive or negative?

 Daum develops negative attitudes toward today’s celebrities. In the past celebrities were talented people and they had to make a huge effort in order to achieve fame. However, nowadays owing to the mushroom growth of media, anyone can become celebrity in no time. Present- day -- celebrities are untalented people, but past - day - celebrities were really genius. Similarly the easily earned fame of today’s celebrities vanishes soon. However, in the past, the hard-earned fame of past celebrities was much more durable.

5. What do you think Daum means in paragraph 6 by “tabloid-targeted exploits”? Can you give examples of such exploits?

A tabloid is a kind of popular newspaper with small pages that has many pictures and short, simple reports. Generally it features stories of violence, crime, or scandal presented in a sensational manner. The media gives space to the untalented and unworthy people. Interestingly, the audience buy their magazines, watch their shows,   and follow them on social media, and consequently these annoying people become celebrities.

6. In paragraph 9, Daum says, “Fame is no longer about reaching the masses but about finding a niche somewhere.” Give some examples of what a “niche audience” might be.

A niche audience is a select group of people that keeps interest in a certain celebrities. Fame is supposed to reach masses, but fami-ness touches only a few people who have a unique interest.

7. What does Daum see as the positive side of the “democratization of fame” (10)?

Democratization of fame has made it possible for people to expose themselves to the masses. Media is free from the grip of certain institutions, and people have easy access to the means of mass communication.  Daum states that media has really given justice to the people to show their talents. The YouTube, American Idol, and Myspace are providing new opportunities for genuinely talented people. But at the same time, they are giving much space to unworthy people too. This is the dangerous side of the democratization of fame.

8. According to Daum, what is the difference between “actual fame” and “fame-iness”?

Daum shows the difference between actual fame and fame-iness. Actual fame is a product of the talents and hard work, but fame-iness is a product of media. Actual fame is much more durable than the fame-iness. Similarly actual fame allows the celebrities to become a household name. However, fame-iness is limited to only a certain group of people.

9. Does Daum include a formal definition of fame-iness in her essay? If so, where? If not, supply one.

Daum does not give a formal definition of fame-iness. The definition of the term is implied in the essay. She has used description, exemplification, negation, and analogy to define fami-ness.

Definition: Fame-iness is a short-lived popularity that a person achieves not by doing anything good, but by doing ridiculous and nonsensical things.

10. Where does she define fame-iness by negation? By analogy?

Daum defines fame-iness both by negation and analogy. Negation is a means of defining something by telling what it is not. She defines the term 'fame-iness' by describing what it is not. She states that fame-iness rests not on accomplishments but on the ability to get people’s attention.

An analogy identifies similarities between an unfamiliar term and something likely to be more familiar to readers. She coins the term ‘reverse indifference’ so as to define fame-iness. To make it more clear, she compares it to one’s gradual adjustment with unfamiliar things. She says that while walking into a room that smells like a garbage, a person feels uneasy, but gradually tolerates the odor. But she knows that it is not possible for her to adjust with fame-iness. For her, fame- iness is so disgusting that it could never attract people like her.