whereas we are now living among generations where it's more or less enough to be famous, even if what you are famous for is being a stupid git or similar...

The famous-thing has never had any real appeal for me -- I mean, have you ever heard someone who's famous raving about how much they love it?  I would think there's more of a drive to create something that lives on beyond you: a work of art, an invention that revolutionizes the world, the mathematic formula for God.  Something more than, "I'm the daughter of a rich person -- here's a video-tape of me having sex!"

With that in mind, though, videotapes of me having sex are available in the lobby.

Indeed. If I ever "achieve" any sort of fame, I certainly hope that it's for something I've actually accomplished (and preferrably something of which I am also proud). Fame just for the heck of it... just seems SOOOO very daft. And the daft things people do in order to get there oftentime downright asinine.

Ah, you'll never get them out there that way, Tom. You have to "leak" them to YouTube or something. ;)

I don't write to become famous, though I do hope that I become a writer that is so popular that fame becomes an inevitability. I love it when people love my stuff and I love to reach audiences and as far as I'm concerned the bigger the audience the better. I've never understood the thought that if you become popular you must not be very good at what you do.

Would I take fame solely for its own sake? Yes, if I was famous for a terrible reason (reality show or some such) I'd hope to be able to turn that into being famous for a good reason (writing).

It's like self-esteem; I have met a ton of aspiring writers who have way too much self-esteem. They are not willing to take helpful criticism (that they asked for, I never offer criticism to those who don't ask) and seem to believe that because they are awesome then their work must be awesome.

Now, let's do something fun: What would be your pen/stage name and why? (and I'm sure there's gonna be some porn names as well).

Mine:

Stephen Swan (Simple and elegant, plus has the benefit of being inspired by a Douglas Adams novel 'Long Dark Teatime of the Soul', wherein a character pointed out that the most popular authors all had a long first name and short last name because that looked good on the cover).

Don Swan (just in case I ever write a romance novel).

Steve Swanson (is what I call myself and what I use for my short stories but it seems to lack a certain zing).

Well, I always thought "Tom French" was kind of a cool name -- simple, direct, unique (you'd be surprised how many people spell it "F-R-A-N-C-E" when I say, "It's French, like the language.")

Then to find out there are SEVERAL authors named Tom French out there... depressing -- especially the one who writes all those books about flowers.  I believe I'm the only lyricist with my name, but nothing surprises me anymore. 

Sometimes, late at night when I'm feeling blue, I go to Amazon specifically to look up my book, just to make sure it's there -- then I fight through all the damn flower books and the crap on higher mathematics (Those Tom Frenchs seem to be smarter than me, too!) just to see it.

I used to toy with the idea of a pen name, but I want to be ME!

...though I do hope that I become a writer that is so popular that fame becomes an inevitability. 

As long as I was John Irving and not Stephen King.  Seriously, how many people recognize writers when they're walking down the street?  I'm sure if Byrne was standing next to me on a corner, even though I KNOW what he looks like, I probably wouldn't recognize him.  That's a different sort of "fame" than what I meant -- I mean, I wouldn't want the Paris Hilton kind of "fame." 

 I've never understood the thought that if you become popular you must not be very good at what you do.

I had a writing teacher who once said to me, "When the author's name is bigger than the title, that's when to start avoiding their books."  I found that very profound.

Let me give a musical example.  Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber, very famous with the masses, but his work is nothing more than crap for the ears.  (My favorite music joke: "He's the Tchaikovsky of Broadway.")  Compare to Stephen Sondheim, perhaps the BEST American theatre composer/lyricist of this century, but only the snobs and elites "get" his work, because he's NOT easy to listen to.  Who would you rather be?

I'm right here. Jodi. I'm posting on other threads around here....just remember.

I'm never far away.