CCBC-Net Archives
[CCBC-Net] celebrity--a bit long
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Maia Cheli-Colando <maia>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:55:26 -0800
>
> In my mind part of the solution involves getting authors to roll up their sleeves, way before they're even published
> and certainly afterwards, and become willing and enthusiastic partners in the marketing of their titles and the building of their platforms.
>
> Olgy
> -------------------------------------------
> Olgy Gary, Gen'l Manager
I guess I disagree. I think that some writers also make splendid presenters, but assuming that that must be part of a package will wound us all, I think.
At dessert tonight, Bruce Cockburn's Beautiful Creatures came on the stereo, and it synchronized with my pondering this topic. What impels us to which actions? I remember Jane Goodall, who visited Humboldt recently; she left her abruptly shrinking wilderness to come and speak to the human world, so that that same wilderness would be there in a few years. She has founded Roots and Shoots, she has written literature, she has become a voice of the environmental movement, of the earth herself. She spends little time in Gombe.
There are times we must do this, we must make the circuit, climb down from our trees, talk to crowds of strangers. But to assume that all writers must be also speakers, must also be dog-and-pony shows, must be entertainers... there is a loss there. For Jane Goodall, for Julia Butterfly Hill, the imperative must be to reach many people, to change the flow of events. And some writers must do this too -- they must become speakers, storytellers, entertainers. Teachers. But it is not inherent in the calling to be public simply because one writes.
I would never buy a book by a celebrity; I don't know what a celebrity is. Paris Hilton, whom I know of only as someone blond and DUI? Britney Spears, whom I understand records albums? I don't know these people, they rarely touch on my world except as names. They aren't relevant. There was an amusing article in the San Francisco Chronicle this week, about man-crushes. Only problem for me, I didn't know the men. :) I don't live in that world, nor do I find it intriguing.
Does this make me a snobby reader and writer of snobby literature
(children's and otherwise)? I don't think so. I think most humans would be a hell of a lot better off if they more selectively filtered their media. I want to be an active participant in creating the membrane that determines what flows into my soul. I am not interested in bringing in toxic plastic, that I can't filter back out again sans hormonal release.
If you gave me the choice between a child becoming a reader and a child becoming an engaged, heartful individual, I would take the latter every time. I don't think that books and engagement are bound at the hip; they may coincide, but are not dependent on one another. I guess I am grateful that I am not a librarian -- only a lowly writer -- so that I can choose what I will bring into the sacred shelves of literature and story. It's not to say that nothing foolish enters my home (certain Thomas the Tank Engine texts come to mind <g>)... but I don't have to bribe anyone to read with material that is caustic to their soul or mine.
Advances and ghost writers? (Fascinating image, there.) I think we all would do better to abandon celebrityism; I think it is damaging to everyone involved -- the voyeur, the person-now-public-figure, and the people (publishers/journalists/press) who make figures out of people. If I read a book by someone famous, it is because I want to know what they are thinking. If they aren't writing what they are thinking, what is the point? I might read a book by Al Gore or Barack Obama to know their impetus (impetii?) -- but why would I want to know what their ghosts are thinking, unless I wish to make a political (or metaphysical) extrapolation?
If someone is interesting, their words are likely to be interesting.
(They may not be a brilliant writer, but they are likely to be able to express something worth reading.) If someone is not, why would I want to read what they writ?
What is a celebrity, anyway? Someone we celebrate? Do we really celebrate Paris Hilton, or Madonna? M&M's?
Should we writers help build our own platforms? Of course. But don't expect me to put on makeup and a bikini and swing through the trees from mine while the camera pans across...
Maia
Received on Mon 11 Jun 2007 12:55:26 AM CDT
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:55:26 -0800
>
> In my mind part of the solution involves getting authors to roll up their sleeves, way before they're even published
> and certainly afterwards, and become willing and enthusiastic partners in the marketing of their titles and the building of their platforms.
>
> Olgy
> -------------------------------------------
> Olgy Gary, Gen'l Manager
I guess I disagree. I think that some writers also make splendid presenters, but assuming that that must be part of a package will wound us all, I think.
At dessert tonight, Bruce Cockburn's Beautiful Creatures came on the stereo, and it synchronized with my pondering this topic. What impels us to which actions? I remember Jane Goodall, who visited Humboldt recently; she left her abruptly shrinking wilderness to come and speak to the human world, so that that same wilderness would be there in a few years. She has founded Roots and Shoots, she has written literature, she has become a voice of the environmental movement, of the earth herself. She spends little time in Gombe.
There are times we must do this, we must make the circuit, climb down from our trees, talk to crowds of strangers. But to assume that all writers must be also speakers, must also be dog-and-pony shows, must be entertainers... there is a loss there. For Jane Goodall, for Julia Butterfly Hill, the imperative must be to reach many people, to change the flow of events. And some writers must do this too -- they must become speakers, storytellers, entertainers. Teachers. But it is not inherent in the calling to be public simply because one writes.
I would never buy a book by a celebrity; I don't know what a celebrity is. Paris Hilton, whom I know of only as someone blond and DUI? Britney Spears, whom I understand records albums? I don't know these people, they rarely touch on my world except as names. They aren't relevant. There was an amusing article in the San Francisco Chronicle this week, about man-crushes. Only problem for me, I didn't know the men. :) I don't live in that world, nor do I find it intriguing.
Does this make me a snobby reader and writer of snobby literature
(children's and otherwise)? I don't think so. I think most humans would be a hell of a lot better off if they more selectively filtered their media. I want to be an active participant in creating the membrane that determines what flows into my soul. I am not interested in bringing in toxic plastic, that I can't filter back out again sans hormonal release.
If you gave me the choice between a child becoming a reader and a child becoming an engaged, heartful individual, I would take the latter every time. I don't think that books and engagement are bound at the hip; they may coincide, but are not dependent on one another. I guess I am grateful that I am not a librarian -- only a lowly writer -- so that I can choose what I will bring into the sacred shelves of literature and story. It's not to say that nothing foolish enters my home (certain Thomas the Tank Engine texts come to mind <g>)... but I don't have to bribe anyone to read with material that is caustic to their soul or mine.
Advances and ghost writers? (Fascinating image, there.) I think we all would do better to abandon celebrityism; I think it is damaging to everyone involved -- the voyeur, the person-now-public-figure, and the people (publishers/journalists/press) who make figures out of people. If I read a book by someone famous, it is because I want to know what they are thinking. If they aren't writing what they are thinking, what is the point? I might read a book by Al Gore or Barack Obama to know their impetus (impetii?) -- but why would I want to know what their ghosts are thinking, unless I wish to make a political (or metaphysical) extrapolation?
If someone is interesting, their words are likely to be interesting.
(They may not be a brilliant writer, but they are likely to be able to express something worth reading.) If someone is not, why would I want to read what they writ?
What is a celebrity, anyway? Someone we celebrate? Do we really celebrate Paris Hilton, or Madonna? M&M's?
Should we writers help build our own platforms? Of course. But don't expect me to put on makeup and a bikini and swing through the trees from mine while the camera pans across...
Maia
Received on Mon 11 Jun 2007 12:55:26 AM CDT
