still has my heart. My understanding (based from something I read or heard, sigh) is that she has some learning disabilities, which might explain her "contained" life before pseudo-celebrity, as well as her exhaustion afterwards. But she just wanted to sing. I hope she gets a recording contract, and enough people around her who care about her to keep her from getting "too" famous. I don't want a Susan Boyle plus-size fashion line at Kohl's, nor do I want a Susan Boyle reality show. (And I don't think she wants that either). But I'd pay to hear her voice belt out a few more show tunes, or blues laments.

In some ways, Susn Boyle's experience has given me greater compassion for prepubescently packaged "starlets" like Britney, Lindsey, Mary-Kate, and the like. Thrust into 24-hour fame before their long bones have finished growing, they were probably as ill-equipped for insta-fame as Miss Boyle (or any of us might be). But they, of course, are ridiculed for train-wrecks in which they were more likely passenger, and not engineer.

I got the audiobook version of it. Hearing that voice, now changed by age, slurred by drugs and full of a cynicism she never played in any of her roles, she purged me of my remaining hints of interest in celebrity life and gossip.

In the end, the performer's personal life only informs the roles they play. What they do on screen, on stage or on mike is what defines their worthiness of our attention. And frankly, the work of the biggest tabloid celebrities hyped over the last fifteen years are very unworthy.

Such an article assumes facts not in evidence, to wit, that some of them (Octo-Mom, Jon & Kate) had any soul to begin with. I would argue that they didn't in the first place. Someone with a true soul and valid self-identity wouldn't need to sink to such depravity as reality TV, AW'ing interviews, etc.

I don't know most of these folks you speak of, but I applaud your canny ability to rip them a new one. And I love your revised format - you've obviously taken a page from Glen Greenwald. Nice change of pace. Thanks for your insight.

"Being famous for NOTHING" used to piss me off a lot. I could rail about Paris Hilton with the best of them.

I think I'm over it now. With very few exceptions, most famous people are famous for inane things anyway. Most famous performers are famous as much for their looks or bad behavior or just dumb luck as they are for any artistic ability. Same with most famous politicians and athletes. (And there are thousands of examples of both who do the same or better work that you've never heard of and never will.)

More people get famous just for being famous? Why shouldn't they get "their money for nothin' and their chicks for free"?

God bless 'em -- they're not at a desk worrying that if their subway is effed up again or if they object to some stupid new policy they'll be in the next layoff.

Good points. And I think it makes a great case for the estate tax. Paris Hilton is nothing if not proof that inherited wealth destroys intellect, creativity, work ethic and value to society. I think we can put most pseudo-celebrities into that category as well.

Anyone care to bet that Octomom won't end up on TLC, the network of the outre?

It makes me REALLY value actors & musicians & other artists who manage to do their work, and NOT wind up in these publications/sites.

(and I have no idea who they are)

...that is...the kind of thing that they like, as Jean Brodie would say.

Everybody loved her and were rooting for her to succeed. There was nothing cynical in how she acted or how we responded.

As for the rest, well Americans are bullies and in order to feel better they have to put someone else down. These un-celebrities are really scapegoats. People watch them so they can feel good about themselves and ignore or play down their own problems. The real issue is not the soulless celebs but the soulless public who watches them.

@Yminale As for the rest, well Americans are bullies and in order to feel better they have to put someone else down. These un-celebrities are really scapegoats. People watch them so they can feel good about themselves and ignore or play down their own problems.

Luckily such attributes would never show up on Salon.

Not too bad, Heather, but they're are some problems with the article right from the get go. For one, when have stars been "out?" Magazine covers and advertising say otherwise (it doesn't matter HOW popular "Octo-mom" gets, she ain't gonna move covers of Vogue) Likewise, Heidi Montag's music career and clothing line have failed.

Secondly, are these yahoos really "regular ordinary people?" It's not a big secret these days that The Hills is so heavily choreographed that it out to have a Sondheim score. Likewise Jon and Kate's life has been given a Hollywood rewite (Makeovers! Mansions! Nannies! And that's among allegeations about how much time they actually spend with the kids.) I thought it was a practically a cliche that many of these people are more unpaid (or underpaid) performers rather then "real" people (which is why, of course these shows continue to be popular with producers, even when they don't do well. These silly shows probably still cost less then, say, Jennifer Aniston's salary.)

Finally, this article fails to note that, like The Greatest Show on Earth, many of these people and shows they are on are based on unadulterated hype. In THAT sense, the gossip media isn't really all that differet from the news media after all (which is why I don't agree with the notion that we should dimiss this spectacle out of hand when it can be used as a study of how the media actually works.) Many of these people aren't as "big" or "triumphant" as the gossip conglamorates (in tandemn with these "stars" overworked PR flacks.") say they are.