"Gossiping" about sundry and often intimate aspects of a famous person's life is hardly "creepy." The Library of Congress is full of tens of thousands of tell-all biographies of famous people and the New York Times's literary pages have often profiled such books, many have gone on to sell millions of copies, have been heaped with acclaim and won literary prizes. Let me note, one of the selling points of even respectable biographies is that they give "intimate"details about the person's life. But, by your odd and singular standards this goes into the realm of "creepiness." I for one am grateful to the many excellent historians, biographers and researchers who make it their business to delve into the intimate and often suprising lives of famous people. I don't think that those historians, biographers and researchers are creepy in the least bit [although by your standards they would be], nor do I think that those of us who read their works are creepy or lack a life because we are interested in those intimate details of famous people that we will never meet. And I note here that you make a distinction between levels of information, i.e. according to you its okay to read surfacy information about famous people and that's an acceptable hobby, but the deeper one delves into the lives of famous people, the more one risks getting into the "creepy" realm. The thing is that most readers are not as interested in mundane facts as they would be in intimate details. I again note that "tell-all" biographies sell more. As I have stated, it is the fame of the famous person that makes them interesting to the public. Famous people [especially entertainers] often live priviledged lives with VIP treatment, wealth, important connections and adoring fans, however, the collateral "damage" is that entertainers like Ms. Mendes [who wants to have her cake and eat it too] lose their privacy. If its that important to them, they can quietly retire, or go into another field of work that will not generate interest in their lives.
reply
share