I recognize I'm late to the dance (I'm 68), but recently I naively decided to enter a discussion board on IMDB's Tom Cruise board, what I thought was a respectable organization, in order to discuss whether judgements about Tom's professional career (or, generally, any actor's) could be separated out from judgments about Tom himself, particularly as he is depicted in his role as a celebrity. I'd been interested in this topic for some time, discussing it with friends and others of my acquaintance. Even though I'd seen examples of what I thought were juvenile behavior on the board, I ventured ahead anyway. Well, there were a number of respondents who went after me for what they perceived as defending Tom, merely because I thought we should be able to reject what he was promoting, particularly what presumably was derived from his relationship with Scientology. My own view that we should "live and let live", derived in part from the idea of "judging not that ye be judged", was not well-received.

Well, I learned my lesson, I suppose, and after one false start I tried again, staying away from issues that were inflammatory. One of the thoughts that lingered had to do with the justifications used for the kind of outrage and ridicule these folks used. One that stayed with me had to do with how Tom should be held accountable for his behavior. It was these folks' task to bring him down, using the most vile language they could summon.

The unfortunate lesson I'm learning from this is that this new medium is serving to divide us. The whole notion of tolerance itself is suffering.

James

SO sorry, it was you who brought up the "weird charisma" and so tho I like answering the others' posts, I am so sorry that I put your words into another mouth, or keyboard. Great essay you have there, what will help many.

Ballsee I agree with your post.

TC in LA: very constructive what you shared. There's an essay there that would help many. By the way, yes it is Charisma but in major celebs, with exceptions o' course, it's charisma sqared exponentially, it's charisma-- beyond the beyond. Their faces and auras and bodies really do change under the glare of movie cameraa or the public...

@Demoted. I think it's time we let Joan (Walsh) and the letter readers who give such random red stars as if we in pre-school but we cannot see the "teachers"--time to give them some flak. I have already done so. But we need more to make it change. The red stars are rarely the best written posts, maybe the earliest posts or the most complimentary ones, but beats me how they give (and now un-give) they did that??? very strange their "editor's picks"... It is bad mainly beccause brilliant letters and I don't mean yours or mine, don't get read. Red= most read.

I think we among ourselves, as is done on NYTimes forums and many other places, WE SHOULD VOTE for which letter or letters are best to us. That is a bit tricky because folks will always play favorites and it would be hard work but I'd volunteer 12 hours a week to this issue. Because it's unfair to readers not to mention annoying for us who write. I think that would make so much more sense...

I was actually thinking about writing, tongue in cheeck, to advice columnist Cary Tennis starting with: "I write a lot of letters." Followed by "I think I deserve more red stars and my existing ones are often letters that suck... " So, let's start bugging the letter readers and the management. You have s red star from me right now. I know, it doesn't replace the other.

Anyone want to protest this invisible and not very smart matter...????

I really hate that people who go to the celebrity blogs insist we all do the same. No, we do not. I followed some link to one of them, & it was like being dropped in toxic waste. It was depressing, mean, & that's who they're calling to their site. "Like attracts like." I avoid them for my own sake, never minding the people they're exploiting. Reloading any of those sites, ever, even once, would pretty much mean the death of my soul. Stop assuming we're all the same. We're not. If you like reading about someone else's misfortune, go for it, but it says a lot more about you than it does about the person some stupid celeb-blog is trashing.

...an article about celebrities I can read. I've always loathed our media obsessed culture. I haven't watched TV in years, never did I ever read the gossip mags, rarely anymore do I even go to the movies. The fact that someone is "famous" is boring. Although I am often drawn to the work others have done, whatever the famous do in their personal lives is of no interest. I've also lived long enough to tell the difference between genuine talent and mugging. I know many very talented and gifted people who have never been on TV, and never will. They are far more important than anyone in the celebrity mags. To all those who follow that garbage, I say, Get a Life!

What cracks me up about the letters here is the comment from tomreedtoon. With the internet, even micro-celebrities like HH have their own micro-gawkers. It's turtles all the way down!

First of all, I think it's a little specious to lump Gawker in with Perez and company. The big difference with Gawker and Gawker-adjacent sites is that they don't take this stuff seriously. Part of the annoyance of other gossip hounds is not merely the fact that, say, "Britney without panties" is reported on at all. It's that it's reported on with the breathless ardor and urgency of a nuclear war declaration (up to and inlcuding ACTUAL media.) Gawker treats these stories (and even themselves) with the ridicule and absurd whimsey they deserve. Even the much-maligned "Gawker Stalker" is used ironically. (Indeed, part of the point of the "Jimmy Kimmel incident" is that the system isn't even all that reliable anyway.) The whole point is that unlike the Perez/In Touch Weekly/TMZ brigade Gawker media DOESN'T worship celebrity. In fact their calvacade of sites is

Also, someone dared to drag poor John Lennon into this mix, ignoring that Lennon was famous as an ARTIST. The Britney/Lindsay/Paris squad are "celebrities." They're famous PRECISELY because they engage in eccentric behavior.