The last chapter of the famous logarithms book
Taking a comprehensive look at various levels, it becomes clear that the most famous is not necessarily the most worthy in terms of talent, effort, or even achievement. Definitely, especially when noticing that the challenge to fame is not limited to two options: fame or “no fame”, but rather includes mainly the degrees of fame and its different forms beyond limit.
In his book, The Art of Fame: Self-Marketing Geniuses from Albert Einstein to Kim Kardashian, Rainer Zettleman Rainer Zitelmann To the fact that fame is not related to the extent of achievement, which is a clever turn that the author refers to throughout the book through the examples he is exposed to from celebrities from Albert Einstein to Kim Kardashian, but Dr. Zeitelman looks specifically at what he calls “the art of self-marketing” as the most prominent reasons leading to fame. Self-marketing is indeed very important in life, and it pushes the success – in many cases – of those with the weakest talent and lowest achievement in their fields at the expense of the deepest talent and greatest achievement. But self-marketing itself needs an explanation, as an aspiring to fame may focus his interests in exploring the best ways to market himself and not reap some of the fame earned by a competitor who was fortunate enough with one opportunity he did not plan for, which was his entrance through which he launched to the worlds of stardom.
We recommend: Amr Mounir Dahab writes: Fame After Death: Chapter Thirty of the Book of Algorithms of Fame
Achieving fame is contributed to by a number of different and overlapping factors when taking an overview of the stories of famous people in their different fields, but by examining each story it becomes clear that a particular factor – which may be transient and weak in general – is what led in particular to the achievement of the fame of a topic Each story is separate, whether that topic is a character or a particular idea.
The fame of a thinker may be achieved because of an intellectual achievement that is not original or profound, but that thinker has succeeded in attracting the attention of the masses, unlike the more original and profound thinkers whose ideas have not been fortunate enough to receive significant attention from the masses. When looking in general terms, the depth and originality of the achievement may stand in the way of spreading, giving way to what is simpler and less weighty to fly in the heavens of fame.
The simpler and less weighty is not an objective defect in all cases, and the pursuit of fame in itself is a right for every creator and every human being, and therefore the achievement of fame for a character is not a crime for which that character will be held accountable, no matter what the content that qualified them for fame is flimsy from a point of view, the responsibility lies in the end Everyone who contributed to the consolidation of that fame, starting with the people in charge of the various forums through which that character continued to appear, and ending with the masses who approved the fame with acceptance and passion for follow-up.
One of the prominent reasons that contribute to the consolidation of the fame of a particular character or idea may be a factor that appears marginal, and at the forefront of those factors that seem marginal is the name through which that character or that subject is presented to people. In the book “Humble the Writers,” under the title “The Writer’s Charisma,” we saw that “when we fail to identify the reasons for the success of a legendary leader or the brilliance of an eloquent orator, we attach our failure to the bearers of “charisma,” saying that more leaders or a lifetime of orators enjoy high charisma. Make him captivate those around him is like saying that that man charms people because he has the ability to charm people. Is this not included in the ruling on the interpretation of water with water? Saying that a man is endowed with high charisma does not depart from him being a description of that man and not an explanation of the reasons for his success and brilliance as a leader or orator or anything else. To unforgettable – from the first sight that the reader’s eyes fall on him”, in reference to the importance of the name, not as the basis of fame, but the beginning from which the seeker of fame goes to glory, even within a field in the sobriety of writing in general.
But when fame is blessed with its consent to a character, it does not let a factor stand in its way. If the name of that character does not have enough charisma, the masses are automatically pushed to take off a distinctive name for that character, which becomes the title that precedes the name, follows it, or even excludes it completely and replaces it. his place.
Returning to Rainer Zettleman’s distinguished book in this regard, we stand on some of the basic reasons (which may seem marginal or even illogical at times from the point of view of some) in achieving the fame of stars in all their fields. Dr. Zettleman says in the introduction: “In fact, many of the people covered in the book have achieved exceptional achievements within the professions they have chosen, but if we examine things closely, we notice that their fame exceeded the levels of their achievements. Let’s take, for example, Stephen Hawking, who can be considered the most famous scientist in the world. of his time, Hawking was well aware of the situation (saying): To my colleagues, I am just another physicist, but to the public I may have turned into the most famous scientist in the world. Zeittelman continues: “Hawking, who was so good at marketing himself, was better known to the public than many Nobel laureates, although he did not win this prize, and his peers did not see him as the extraordinary world that the public imagined, for example, In Physics Word’s survey of physicists in the last millennium, he did not appear on the list of the top ten living physicists.
Continuing what he sees as Hawking’s ingenuity in “marketing himself,” Rainer Zettleman says: “Stephen Hawking was more daring. He was able to turn his disability into an advantage. When asked how he achieved fame, he answered: Partly because scientists, other than Einstein, are not stars. I am a very popular person, and I fit the stereotype of a genius with a disability, and I can’t deny it by wearing a wig and dark sunglasses, I would be disgraced by a wheelchair.”
If fame is the same with Stephen Hawking, then what about the Nobel Prize winner (what about the reasons for the award itself?) who is exceptional even in the eyes of his fellow scientists? Was the scientific prowess and exceptional achievement enough to achieve his fame? The answer, which Zeitelman suggests in his book, is no: “Albert Einstein consciously sought to build his image as a disheveled scientist who did not care about his grooming, a eccentric man who did not care about what he wore, who detested collars and ties, and who did not comb his long hair He wears no stockings and leaves his shirt open.
Zeittelmann continues about Einstein: “Einstein fits perfectly in the familiar formula of the eminent avant-garde scientist,” says his German biographer Jürgen Nefee. He adds that Einstein was “the perfect subject for photographers, journalists, and all those who help achieve popularity, and he had a strange symbiotic relationship with them.” When Einstein was asked one day about his profession, he replied sarcastically: a fashion model. One rumor says that as soon as the paparazzi approached Einstein, he fiddled with his hair with both hands to restore the archetypal image of the eccentric professor.
In any case, whatever the true story of the photo, a well-established scientist such as Einstein sticks his tongue out to photographers – knowing that his image will roam the horizons immediately after – his abilities to steal the camera and attract attention cannot be questioned, not necessarily without his unique scientific achievements but at least Parallel to these achievements.
Fame, then, does not necessarily mean that those who seize it are the best (in terms of talent, effort, or achievement) in their fields, but rather that the achievement of those who have become famous has clearly attracted people’s attention. And the situation is like that, is it not possible to consider every famous person as deserving of fame, as it basically means success in penetrating the conscience of the masses? Can it not be said that the most worthy of fame is the one who actually achieved it, even if it is not the deepest talent, the greatest effort, or the greatest achievement? The last chapter of the famous logarithms book
To contact the author: