Book Review: The Frenzy of Renown – Fame and Its History by Leo Braudy

What makes fame so alluring to audiences and yet so disillusioning for the object of fame? How have the criteria for what deserves or attracts fame changed in different historical eras? What makes people famous? Is it their exemplary conduct as public figures? Or is it their uncompromising resistance to a social paradigm which is trying to absorb them? The Frenzy of Renown is both a who’s who of western history’s heavyweights and an insightful exploration of the human urge to be recognized.

Leo Braudy, Professor of Literature at the University of Southern California, has created a rich historical study of fame spanning from Alexander the Great’s appropriation of the Homeric epics all the way to Marilyn Monroe’s unnecessary emulation of Jean Harlow imagery, and beyond. The Frenzy of Renown is an intriguing approach to some of history’s most significant figures, especially in that it analyzes why and how these famous figures became, and remained, so recognized.

Cartoon by John Porcellino

To give you a fair taste of the book without spoiling it, consider Alexander the Great, one central illustrative example of fame covered by Braudy. The ascent of Alexander the Great (a student of Aristotle, mind you) set the mold for millennia for military, political, and cultural conquest. Braudy shows how Alexander, when he became most famous during his life, took on a semi-divine identity and thereby sacrificed his own human life to the icon he was consciously creating, an object of fame. When Alexander crossed that line into grandeur, he left behind his humanity and became intent on enhancing the mystique which surrounded him. To that end, he murdered all those closest to him. He murdered some of his commanders, he murdered the captain of his guard, and he murdered his publicist/historian Callisthenes (Aristotle’s great-nephew), whose job it was to send accounts of Alexander’s Asiatic conquests back home to the heart of the growing empire. Alexander even murdered his best friend who had once saved his life (though he didn’t have the nerve to do it until he was in a drunken rage), because he couldn’t have somebody walking around saying that they’d saved Alexander the Great’s life. Beyond being Great, Alexander was also sociopathic and unhinged, and Braudy does a fantastic job of deeply exploring the paradox that powers fame, what makes the object of fame so admirable and, so often, at the same time unfit for society.

To whet your intellectual appetite, some of the other figures covered in the book include, but are certainly not limited to, Ceasar Augustus, St. Augustine, Dante, Lord Byron, Benjamin Franklin, Napoleon Bonaparte, Walt Whitman, Charles Lindberg, P.T. Barnum, and Ernest Hemingway.

You had to meet him to understand...

The major themes in The Frenzy of Renown draw a swinging historical pendulum between the public notion of fame, like Ceasar or Cicero in the Roman Forum, and the private notion of fame, like Jesus or St. Antony retreating to the wilderness for purity. During the course of the book, Braudy illustrates the deep abiding paradox which characterizes fame and the urge to fame, as well as the grand and often painful illusion that fame is some sort of spiritual perfection which, once attained, means that the famous person never has to change. All famous objects somehow manufacture a story about themselves, a story designed for public consumption. Furthermore, once fame is achieved the story usually overtakes the actual human being behind the fame, undermining the sense of self which was supposed to be secured by fame.

Fame is impossible without an audience, though the nature of the audience (and the relationship between audience and famous object) changes considerably throughout history, from patrons of the classical artists conferring social and cultural validity, to God and the pantheon of Saints conferring spiritual divine approval, to the modern mass audience which has arisen since the printing press and other broadcast technologies, which in many ways creates the famous person in its own image, investing the aspirations of the obscure admirers into those who have made their way into the spotlight.

Cartoon by Tom Gauld

The Frenzy of Renown is a truly fascinating book written in an eminently readable style, filled with the most compelling and interesting historical figures of the past and present. Being a 600 page non-fiction, the book does demand your time and attention, but it delivers on all counts. If you don’t think you’ll spend the time to read it, ask me some questions, I’ll tell you anything you want to know.

Check out The Frenzy of Renown: Fame and Its History, by Leo Braudy.

Posted in Books, Sociey and Culture | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Eulogy To A Toaster (Tribute to Ogden Nash)

Bye Bye Toaster
You served us Well
You had a relentless ticking sound
And your own tiny Bell

Whenever we have occasion
To heat up Bread
We’ll remember you with gratitude
Ever sorry that you’re Dead

Like a toaster!

Posted in Poetry, Technology and Culture | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Lowest-Rated Jerry Springer Show, Ever

This nerdtastic Internet meme sums up a lot of philosophical discourse in one witty document. I first discovered this old chestnut back in 2000, but felt it merited some re-exposure. It is a transcript of a parody Jerry Springer episode in which estranged lovers expose their dysfunctions along philosophical lines. In searching online for attribution, I have yet to find the author’s name. If anyone knows who wrote this piece, please let me know. Enjoy, and share freely!

“I have a philosophical secret!”

The Lowest-Rated Jerry Springer Show, Ever

Crowd: Jer-ry! Jer-ry! Jer-ry!

Jerry: Today’s guests are here because they can’t agree on fundamental philosophical principles. I’d like to welcome Todd to the show.

[Todd enters from backstage.]

Jerry: Hello, Todd.

Todd: Hi, Jerry.

Jerry: (reading from card) So, Todd, you’re here to tell your girlfriend something. What is it?

Todd: Well, Jerry, my girlfriend Ursula and I have been going out for three years now. We did everything together. We were really inseparable. But then she discovered post-Marxist political and literary theory, and it’s been nothing but fighting ever since.

Jerry: Why is that?

Todd: You see, Jerry, I’m a traditional Cartesian rationalist. I believe that the individual self, the “I” or ego is the foundation of all metaphysics. She, on the other hand, believes that the contemporary self is a socially constructed, multi-faceted subjectivity reflecting the political and economic realities of late capitalist consumerist discourse.

Crowd: Ooooohhhh!

Todd: I know! I know! Is that infantile, or what?

Jerry: So what do you want to tell her today?

Todd: I want to tell her that unless she ditches the post-modernism, we’re through. I just can’t go on having a relationship with a woman who doesn’t believe I exist.

Jerry: Well, you’re going to get your chance. Here’s Ursula!

[Ursula storms onstage and charges up to Todd.]

Ursula: Patriarchal colonizer!

[She slaps him viciously. Todd leaps up, but the security guys pull them apart before things can go any further.]

Ursula: Don’t listen to him! Logic is a male hysteria! Rationality equals oppression and the silencing of marginalized voices!

Todd: The classical methodology of rational dialectic is our only road to truth! Don’t try to deny it!

Ursula: You and your dialectic! That’s how it’s been through our whole relationship, Jerry. Mindless repetition of the post-Enlightenment meta-narrative. “You have to start with radical doubt, Ursula.” “Post-structuralism is just classical skeptical thought re-cast in the language of semiotics, Ursula.”

Crowd: Booo! Booo!

Jerry: Well, Ursula, come on. Don’t you agree that the roots of contemporary neo-Leftism simply have to be sought in Enlightenment political philosophy?

Ursula: History is the discourse of powerful centrally located voices marginalizing and de-scribing the sub-altern!

Todd: See what I have to put up with? Do you know what it’s like living with someone who sees sex as a metaphoric demonstration of the anti-feminist violence implicit in the discourse of the dominant power structure? It’s terrible. She just lies there and thinks of Andrea Dworkin. That’s why we never do it any more.

Crowd: Wooooo!

Ursula: You liar! Why don’t you tell them how you haven’t been able to get it up for the past three months because you couldn’t decide if your penis truly had essential Being, or was simply a manifestation of Mind?

Todd: Wait a minute! Wait a minute!

Ursula: It’s true!

Jerry: Well, I don’t think we’re going to solve this one right away. Our next guests are Louis and Tina. And Tina has a little confession to make!

[Louis and Tina come onstage. Todd and Ursula continue bickering in the background.]

Jerry: Tina, you are… (reads cards) … an existentialist, is that right?

Tina: That’s right, Jerry. And Louis is, too.

Jerry: And what did you want to tell Louis today?

Tina: Jerry, today I want to tell him…

Jerry: Talk to Louis. Talk to him.

[Crowd hushes.]

Tina: Louis… I’ve loved you for a long time…

Louis: I love you, too, Tina.

Tina: Louis, you know I agree with you that existence precedes essence, but…well, I just want to tell you I’ve been reading Nietzsche lately, and I don’t think I can agree with your egalitarian politics any more.

Crowd: Wooooo! Woooooo!

Louis: (shocked and disbelieving) Tina, this is crazy. You know that Sartre clarified all this way back in the 40′s.

Tina: But he didn’t take into account Nietzsche’s radical critique of democratic morality, Louis. I’m sorry. I can’t ignore the contradiction any longer!

Louis: You got these ideas from Victor, didn’t you? Didn’t you?

Tina: Don’t you bring up Victor! I only turned to him when I saw you were seeing that dominatrix! I needed a real man! An Uber-man!

Louis: (sobbing) I couldn’t help it. It was my burden of freedom. It was too much!

Jerry: We’ve got someone here who might have something to add. Bring out…Victor!

[Victor enters. He walks up to Louis and sticks a finger in his face.]

Victor: Louis, you’re a classic post-Christian intellectual. Weak to the core!

Louis: (through tears) You can kiss my Marxist ass, Reactionary Boy!

Victor: Herd animal!

Louis: Lackey!

[Louis throws a chair at Victor; they lock horns and wrestle. The crowd goes wild. After a long struggle, the security guys pry them apart.]

Jerry: Okay, okay. It’s time for questions from the audience. Go ahead, sir.

Audience member: Okay, this is for Tina. Tina, I just wanna know how you can call yourself an existentialist, and still agree with Nietzsche’s doctrine of the Ubermensch. Doesn’t that imply a belief in intrinsic essences that is in direct contradiction with with the fundamental principles of existentialism?

Tina: No! No! It doesn’t. We can be equal in potential, without being equal in eventual personal quality. It’s a question of Becoming, not Being.

Audience member: That’s just disguised essentialism! You’re no existentialist!

Tina: I am so!

Audience member: You’re no existentialist!

Tina: I am so an existentialist, bitch!

[Ursula stands and interjects.]

Ursula: What does it [bleep] matter? Existentialism is just a cover for late capitalist anti-feminism! Look at how Sartre treated Simone de Beauvoir!

[Women in the crowd cheer and stomp.]

Tina: [Bleep] you! Fat-ass Foucaultian ho!

Ursula: You only wish you were smart enough to understand Foucault, bitch!

Tina: You the bitch!

Ursula: No, you the bitch!

Tina: Whatever! Whatever!

Jerry: We’ll be right back with a final thought! Stay with us!

[Commercial break for debt-consolidation loans, ITT Technical Institute, and Psychic Alliance Hotline.]

Jerry: Hi! Welcome back. I just want to thank all our guests for being here, and say that I hope you’re able to work through your differences and find happiness, if indeed happiness can be extracted from the dismal miasma of warring primal hormonal impulses we call human relationship.
[turns to the camera]
Well, we all think philosophy is just fun and games. Semiotics, deconstruction, Lacanian post-Freudian psychoanalysis, it all seems like good, clean fun. But when the heart gets involved, all our painfully acquired metaphysical insights go right out the window, and we’re reduced to battling it out like rutting chimpanzees. It’s not pretty. If you’re in a relationship, and differences over the fundamental principles of your respective subjectivities are making things difficult, maybe it’s time to move on. Find someone new, someone who will accept you and the way your laughably limited human intelligence chooses to codify and rationalize the chaos of existence. After all, in the absence of a clear, unquestionable revelation from God, that’s all we’re all doing anyway. So remember: take care of yourselves — and each other.

Announcer: Be sure to tune in next time, when KKK strippers battle it out with transvestite omnisexual porn stars! Tomorrow on Springer!

Posted in Funny, Philosophy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment