The privacy of the famous (was about Scrooge)

[Amy Z]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at y..., "Saitaina" <saitaina at w...> wrote:
> While the famous bemoan the loss of privacy, many do enjoy the 
> attention (otherwise, why would they do such public jobs?)

Well, they might do them =despite= the attention, or the attention 
might be very nice for a time but get wearisome after awhile.

To use our mutual favorite as an example:  JKR wrote these books 
because she had a story to tell.  She wants publicity, I'm sure, in 
that getting your story out there involves publicity.  But that 
doesn't mean that she particularly enjoys the attention.  Maybe she 
only enjoys having millions of people read her stories, but wishes 
she could've done that without the side effect of being quite so well 
known.

Some of the famous are just whining or asking for more attention, I'm 
sure.  But some may really be upset by the fact that it is all but 
impossible to be an artist whose work is widely known and still 
preserve one's privacy.  If one is a performer, forget it, because 
people know one's face.  Those who do insist on their privacy are 
treated like freaks (J.D. Salinger comes to mind) and those who are 
even slightly reticent are described as "recluses" (Bob Dylan comes 
to mind.  The man is not a recluse; he plays 100+ shows a year and 
grants interviews.  But some members of the media, and even fans, 
treat it as a personal insult if the person doesn't do the talk show 
circuit).  I know my sympathy is better directed toward people with 
real problems, like poverty and illness, but it does irk me when fans 
act as if they are owed something.  The way I figure it, these people 
have given me their art and I am very grateful.  They don't =have= to 
give me interview tidbits too, much as I enjoy them.

Amy Z