So you don't see a difference between, say, kim kardashian's instagram feed and what a top hollywood actress does?
Nope. There is no difference. @jonknee is right. I once met this camera grip boy at a boxing fight watch here in San Francisco. He worked at various sets in L.A., very close to the filming. He would say how he was on Kim Kardashian's "Reality Show" and how the whole thing was completely scripted for shock effect, drama etc. He said "They'd sometime do retakes and tell Kim - "This time yell at your sister louder, and then throw in a I hate you B*tch at the end."
They are all actors. The only difference I see is hollywood actors are elite level, having gone to school, and experienced and top notch, whereas the likes of Kim Kardashian, that Jersey Shores girl are low end trash, but both types make a ton of money on 2 different medium - the former in big screen, the latter on fake "Reality TV shows", and social media (where they get paid to promote crap).
I suppose if I press myself hard enough I have to admit that I just don't like what they are doing, and think it's a net negative to our culture, by my own standards.
There's always been lowbrow culture and pop culture -- so there's nothing essentially new here. But it seems like its ubiquity and popularity have reached new heights. "Seems" being the operative word, one could argue. I think it's really really hard to disentangle surface generational changes from true long-term shifts in major cultural values. Old man syndrome is mistaking the former for the latter. But there's also the opposite syndrome -- which is to insist that the latter doesn't even exist.
Funny for a book that's so rooted in tribes and tribalism that Stephenson didn't go with the classic cultural castes.
Roughly: Labourer, farmer, gatherer (forestry, fishes, herds, hunting), trades & crafts, merchant, warrior, priest (now includes teaching and science, also, arguably, storytellers), rulers. I get about eight out of that, off the top of my head.
Five of those are "things" (the first set). There's a case which might be made for priests and rulers as entertainment / storytelling, but I don't think I could put warriors there.
Which is an interesting omission given the Colonel's role in the story -- clearly Warrior. (Though also, given his media screens, very much taken with Story. Hrm....)
Kim Kardashian's ethnicity is highly relevant as well. Hollywood is a very white place. There really aren't all that many opportunities for black character actresses. Or for people who want a black star to look up to. Kim fills that gap in the market.
And remember, the Kardashians became celebrities at the OJ Simpson trial :)
? Not sure what you mean. She isn't black.
Do you mean because Kanye is on there?
A reality TV show about making a reality TV show.
With The Garry Shandling Show, Entourage, political campaigns (and their documentaries), social influencers, paid placement, Spinal Tap...
Everything's so meta now, I can barely discern fact from fiction.
"All the world's a stage." -- Shakespeare
A success recipe right here.
Just like how the only bloggers who got rich in the early 2000s were the ones who were blogging about "How to get rich blogging".
I don't particularly care for Howard Stern's style of entertainment as an example. Tens of millions of people in the US over the last several decades, have, however. He's an extraordinary entertainer. Ryan Seacrest falls under that same brush.
The other thing these people have in common, they've all regularly made smart business decisions, another skill they share.
The majority of "stars" are known for their big budget blockbusters. I'm not saying that playing Iron Man or Ethan Hunt is easy, but it's definitely not as hard as playing a difficult character actor role.