Fame

When it comes to celebrities handling fame, there are those who handle it well and live normally as possible, then there are those who’re either destroyed by fame (especially if they’re highly self-destructive, contrary personality or suicidal) or if they use fame to get away with shady acts, even if it ironically brings more attention to it.

In the case with Britney Spears, she admits to being too shy for the music industry and possibly why she can’t handle it well, it’s like if you’re reserved and retiring you’re not much of a people person but when you’re made to please and entertain a lot of people there’s only so much emotional labour you can take until you snap, which’s probably her case.

(Spears might’ve done a lot of emotional labour to please and entertain people, even if it’s at the expense of her own preferences and personality like she wanted to do country music but made to sing contrary to her real voice.)

Then comes the second set of people who use their fame for shady ends, to get away with doing something bad without knowing that draws much more attention this way. As charismatic as David Bowie was, he also raped women and a teenaged girl even in the 1970s and 1980s as to show you he’s actually the kind of person to abuse his responsibility.

Some of the same things can be said of Michael Jackson and other celebrities who’ve slept with groupies, where they’re evidently the sort of character who’d abuse their power and responsibility to do really shady acts though this also overlaps with the former to some extent.

(Does bad things when famous, yet can’t handle fame that well either.)

Some people just don’t have the right personality for fame, let alone using it wisely that it takes a resolve to use fame for good and maybe enter another field where the pressure for celebrity’s minimised. Some abuse fame to do shady acts, others handle fame well enough.

Did she ruin her voice?

When it comes to Britney Spears, she’s a very vulnerable musician whom some fans are deeply concerned for her (not helped by that she does get overprotected by her family ever since she had a bad meltdown) and to further complicate matters, she wanted to be a lawyer and country singer but the producers have her altered to suit the market.

It’s actually been said that Spears does have a lower singing voice than usually sang, like I have the nagging feeling that even if she didn’t write her own songs her lower voice seemed much more natural and if it was forced onto her, that might explain some problems especially when it’s likely that could’ve damaged her vocal cords along with her smoking habits.

I do think what really hurt her voice and career’s not just due to her own flaws (like smoking for instance) but also reportedly made to sing beyond her intended range’s what practically hurt her vocal range.

She’s overprotected

When it comes to Britney Spears, she’s one example of a popstar that’s practically overprotected (her father had to look after her real badly after she had a meltdown) and came from an unstable home (fighting, made to grow up at an early age) that I feel to relate to this, I do have an overprotective, strict relative who won’t let me go out on my own for safety. This is reasonable, though I think with her case it’s possible she also got infantilised this way.

She could’ve been a more mature, capable person at some point or another but the meltdown made her father more protective than usual and whilst that’s understandable on his part, not letting her have a big meltdown like she did the last time. But I do think the pressure of fame also hurt her a lot, like she’s shy and reserved but made to become somebody whom she isn’t.

She actually wanted to be a country singer, if I remember but being made to become somebody else did hurt her a lot. Who knows if she’ll get the break fans hoped for, but she might get one in another field in the future.

Otakumania

When it comes to the Japanese word for geek, it’s usually translated into otaku which makes sense most of the time though I feel the Japanese word mania might refer to nerds whose obsessions are much more normal and socially acceptable. Somebody might be a sports mania, or a moe otaku by this definition and wording.

Or perhaps mania refers to those who obsess over something tangible, something like one could be a bicycle mania, whereas with otaku it usually means geek (obsessive over some things, socially inept) but where geeky interests are still looked down upon in Japan due to stigma over the otaku murderer scandal. I know somebody who referred to themselves as a music mania, so their obsession’s socially acceptable.

For some reason, I get the impression that the cartoonist Atsuko Shima’s closer to mania in the sense that her obsession’s socially acceptable (into foreign music, though she could be technically a geek over that) as with Hirohiko Araki to some extent (he’s not fond of bishoujo).

Even if the latter’s works are popular with otaku, but the creator of Berserk’s definitely well within otaku territory (if it weren’t for a comic defending something suspicious) as with creators of bishoujo media. If otaku and mania are nerds, mania are nerds with socially acceptable obsessions like say sports.

Otaku’s the go-for word for nerd, albeit nerds with socially unacceptable interests like bishoujo. Otaku’s usually used to translate nerd with and vice versa, mania does have a close equivalent in fan and aficionado (though the latter’s obsessions are more socially accepted).

Not to generalise

When it comes to some romance readers, it’s easy to presume that they lack intellect even if some romance readers and writers do have intellectual interests like say history and National Geographic (that’s practically the case with some historical romance novelists to get the details right to be fair and generous) though that’s because I know some people like that.

Actually, there might be some genuinely chaste romance novels out there if one looks hard enough though I could be stating that those things do exist to be generous to all the romance readers and to myself. Lastly, but not the least there are romance novels with any legitimate literary credit but they’re few and far-between with debatable classification.

(Something like the works of Jane Austen and arguably Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier do fall into this category, whether if they can be considered romances at all.)

On comic books

I do read comics, though not as often as I did before and I do sometimes read comics. I still do read comics, but when I have other things to do and read up on, as stereotypical as it sounds it takes circumstances and a certain character to frequently read as much comics as they please to.

There are casual readers of comics, where I myself may count as such as I don’t read comics that often (sometimes I do read comics) and there are comics writers who’re casual fans of comics themselves. But a good number of them are diehard comics readers, to the point where it risks feeling like fanfiction.

Not that fanfiction’s necessarily bad, but it takes wider interests to actually not make it seem like fanfiction or at the very least fanfiction with more ideas to it though to be fair, fans do make fine tributes to the works they love.

On the romance reader

I do have my suspicions of people reading romance novels, but then again I have relatives who do read those and one of them doesn’t fit the stereotype to a t (not fond of cats, has two sons). It’s as if The Flash’s Patty Spivot’s actually into trashy novels, that I suspect people would be leery of her as well.

If I’m not mistaken, a good number of romance readers are diehard readers if I recall correctly (whether if Jane Austen’s novels qualify as romance’s up to your guess) and I do know folks who do read romance novels also read up on other stuff. (She reads romance, she also reads National Geographic.)

To avoid painting a broad brush, there are romance readers who do fit the stereotype and then there are others who don’t, though I suspect the latter might be well-read whenever they do read books of other kinds.

On Psylocke

The character did start out as somebody’s sister, albeit in a form different from what she’s usually depicted as until recently and when she did adopt the Asian body, that’s due to body-swapping but one where somebody eventually had to undo this. Psylocke might and should be the poster-child for ‘racebending sucks’, but because this was something that’s forced onto the character in canon, rather than a reimagining.

It’s one thing to reimagine let’s say Valentina Vostok into a Yakut, it’s another to have the bodyswapping actually occur in-story where whatever criticism people have of racebending should be applied to what’s been done to Psylocke. There are characters trained as ninjas, but needn’t to be race and bodyswapped for it, but that involves actually care for characters.

Or at least being able to handle it with any real understanding, even if that may not be the right word for it. Elektra may be Greek and trained to be a ninja, she needn’t to be racebent to become one herself whereas this happened to Psylocke against her will. Now that’s different from the usual racebending, which simply reimagines characters.

She may be finally back to being white again, but I still think if there’s any character that does represent the problem with racebending it should be Psylocke first and foremost.