There was an interesting column in the Ottawa Citizen this week by Dan Gardner on the topic of Celebrity Intellectuals.
We've always had a fascination for the lives of the rich and famous, raising them to the status of celebrity for a number of reasons. Aside - Neal Gabler has an interesting definition of the term celebrity here. Some, like Paris Hilton seem a circular definition of the term, they are famous only because they are famous - with no other skill or talent to have started their climb with. We envy them, emulate them, mock them, or watch their public downfall with the morbid fascination of a slow motion movie of a train wreck. We follow them on "reality TV" as they try new fields, and their klutziness makes them seem more appealing, more natural, yet at the same time it elevates our image of them as celebrities even more. We watch them try to dance, answer quiz show questions, cook, even go into rehab. Some use their status to promote a charity or cause, some to promote their new makeup line.
We celebrate the uniqueness of someone who has become a success in a field, an authority on something - be it Stephen Hawking or Frances Ford Coppola. The difficulty is when someone tries to claim the reverse - that since they are a celebrity in one area, then we should accept them as an expert in another area.
Dan Gardner takes exception to Margaret Atwood in this respect - as she attempts to pontificate on the economic crisis. She writes in the NY Times:
"If fair regulations are established and credibility is restored, people will stop walking around in a daze, roll up their sleeves and start picking up the pieces. Things unconnected with money will be valued more -- friends, family, a walk in the woods ... If fair regulations are not established and rebuilding seems impossible, we could have social unrest on a scale we haven't seen for years."
In fiction one can throw around adjectives, similes, metaphors at will, but if you start throwing around opinions don't expect us to give them too much weight just because you are you. Please add some backing, some precision. What would be "fair regulations", exactly what sort of "social unrest"
In a recent interview where she was asked her learned opinion on the environment, she offered as backing:
"It was all there in the 1972 report put out by the Club of Rome ... that said unless we do something about it, within our children's lifetime the following will happen, and then they spelled out environmental catastrophe, overpopulation, starvation, drought."
What she didn't add, or the interviewer clarify, was that this was the same report that said world supplies of zinc, gold, tin, copper, oil and natural gas would be completely gone by 1992.
As Mr. Gardner so aptly puts it, "Luke Skywalker doesn't question Yoda, the Apostles don't doubt Jesus, and journalists don't fact-check Margaret Atwood," Or at least most don't.
Comments