I only want the young ones.
Following Siam Sam’s link in this thread, I found www. smh.com.au/articles/2008/04/04/1207249460601.html this story about the fallout from an apparently well-publicized child-prodigy. The story is well-written, but the closing quote, from the author of a book about the girl’s case, displays a level of idiocy I cannot ignore:
Of course. When they’re fifty and still trying to dress in teen fashions it hurts to look at.
The translation of “wunderkind” is “wonder child.” There’s a certain assumption of youth to that whole concept and word. (mutter mutter)
I don’t think it’s idiotic. The person (woman?) meant that we like the idea of the young, innocent child prodigy–we don’t want to hear the aftermath of them growing up, getting into trouble, dealing with issues…the not so nice underbelly of it all.
Usually we hear about these kind of troubles with sports prodigies. The academic ones hardly ever get into the limelight in the first place, so when they crack up or simply continue in academia, the public at large doesn’t even notice.
But the gymnasts and the tennis stars ARE celebs, and it seems we often end up hearing of abuse parents or coaches after some of these kids crash and burn. I suppose the same can be said for child actors in many cases.
The biggest differences between the groups is that often the sport/movie celebs have earned a ton of money to cushion their fall, and the brainiacs haven’t. OTOH, one of the ways that the former group gets abused is by adults ripping off their money.
The media craves stories of self-destructing celebs – the younger the better.