Quote:
Originally Posted by barely_legal
I don't really care if my picks are determined to be real celebrities or not -- that's why I submitted alternates when I sent in my list. But, I don't think the test should rely on whether a person is only famous for committing a crime. Does that mean that we couldn't put Charles Manson on our lists? Or the Lockerbie bomber? I remember a few people, including me, having him a few years ago and I don't recall any debate about whether he was a celebrity, even though he's only famous for committing a heinous crime. What about Jack Kevorkian -- wasn't he on a few lists in years past? I would argue that there are tons of people that have been on our lists over the years that have not been questioned, even though they were only famous for committing crimes. Or maybe I was the only person who ever had those people on my list, and y'all have just caught on to my methods?
As to Fawkes, I was hesitant to include her for the reasons that NCS stated, but it was such a softball, I couldn't resist.
|
I agree that there are a few people who are so well known for their crimes that they are notorious and therefore they qualify as a "celebrity". Charles Manson is a perfect example.* My big question for the guy on your list is does he qualify? I don't think everyone who ever killed anybody (even in cases that got a lot of press at the time) is a celebrity and my personal belief as to the pool of notorious criminals who should be included here is that it should be quite small.
Is the point of this game to find the most obscure possible person who possibly could be a "celebrity"? I think not. If you are looking up people you don't already know who appear on death watch lists on the internet, I think that is sort of against the spirit of the celebrity death pool. Just my opinion, but I guess my opinion sort of matters here. By including these questionable people who I then need to research and waste my mental energy on deciding whether technically they are celebrities, it makes my job running this pool less fun.
My decision in this case (taking into account the feedback I got on the board and via PM) is that I'll still let Ian Brady in because I let him in last year, but that doesn't mean he qualifies as a celebrity by my definition and I really think he's a lame pick. Fawkes is disqualified and I'll sub Valerie Harper in her place. I kind of wish you (including the larger you of all participants) would listen to what I'm saying here, and maybe take it to heart in the future when making your picks. But maybe that is asking too much.
Hank has suggested several times a NYT obits test, but I don't really like that test because I find it potentially over-inclusive (especially in this day and age of every news outlet competitively covering every possible story). I think in the end who qualifies as a celebrity is always going to have a subjective element to it. Now you all know a little more the way my definition of celebrity tends to go...
*I'm not gonna look it up, but if he's technically on death row, I don't think he's an eligible pick here (even if CA doesn't currently apply the death penalty).
