« best of is a subjective term | Main | bring out your dead »

i wonder what brad pitt had for dinner

People Magazine's 25 Most Intriguing People of 2002


adj 1: disturbingly provocative; "an intriguing smile" [syn: challenging] 2: capable of arousing interest or curiosity

What do Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Lopez, Julia Roberts and Sarah Jessica Parker all have in common?

Why yes, they are intriguing. According to People Magazine, at least.

Perhaps it is just me, but the above mentioned people arouse no curiosity or interest from me. Of all the people in the world, why would someone find Jennifer Aniston the most intriguing person of 2002? In order to be curious about someone, wouldn't there have to be some sort of mystery about them, something left to wonder about them?

When someone is on the cover of every magazine, the subject of every entertainment show at some point and has been covered in a plethora of "undercover" biographies, what is left to imagine? What is left to intrigue?

Perhaps it is because I am not a fan of Friends that I find the inclusion of Aniston silly at best. Maybe it's because I was never a big fan of Julia Robert's flashy smile or Sarah Jessica Parker (except in Square Pegs) and I despise Sex in the City, or that I know J.Lo is a serial fiance with a string of crappy movie choices behind her that I question the integrity of this list.

Are we, as a nation, so obsessed with Hollywood and its stars, so completely smitten with celebrity and beauty that we choose entertainment personalities over anyone else when looking back at the newsmakers and interesting personalities of the year?

And what is Britney Spears still doing on a list like this? Hasn't she been declared a has-been yet? Isn't she one crappy single away from porn stardom?

Rosie O'Donnell stopped being intriguing from the first words she spoke on her talk show.

Chelsea Clinton? Don't know what she's up to and don't care.

Jimmy Carter? The only thing that intrigues me about him is my visions of stuffing his mouth so full of peanuts he will never be able to speak in public again.

Saddam? Nothing intriguing about him because it's all out in the open. I don't spend my nights wondering what makes the man tick, because it's obvious what does: power. Now, if you were to include his viscious, blood-hungry son Uday on the list, I would be more inclined to agree with the choice. But this is People magazine, and we wouldn't want to scare the readers away with thoughts of torture.

Charles Moose? Most people stopped caring about him the minute CNN stopped scrolling constant sniper updates on the tv screen.

The Osbournes? Ozzy was intriguing to me when I was 13 and was fascinated by this bat-biting prince of darkness. Now, I just look at him and see my youth in the guise of an old man.

I find Dr. Phil intriguing if only for the fact that I can't figure out why people worship every word that he utters. He is a condescending show-man who has probably harmed more relationships than he cured. Why do people hang on his every word when I think he's just making the shit up as he goes along sometimes, often making his guest feel worse than they did to start out?

I suppose, as one who has never take to reading The Star or The Enquirer, that I am just failing to understand America's fascination with celebrities, at least not to the depth that anyone should care what Brad Pitt had for lunch or what style bra - if any - Drew Barrymore wore to the Oscars.

I just think there has to be more intriguing people than most of those that made the list.


Michele,its a mag for maroon,but in is own special way it is more insidious than Time.




As a nation, we are fascinated with the shallow, the vacuous, the self-absorbed, the supremely superficial. Every year, when these "lists" comes out, I'm increasingly stunned at how low our standards seem to be. No wonder Shrub was elected President.... ;0)

I find Condi Rice intriguing...celebrities not at all.

Michele, off topic. I had to move my site due to sabotage so could you be a dear and change your links for the Banned books project? Thanks hun. http://blogland.com/mysinglemomlife/blog/index.php

In defense of People -- shoot me now -- it's an entertainment rag. That they included Hussein only shows that the all-Iraq news channels have a place now.

Again, it's not meant to be read as newsmakers, important people.

Carter IS interesting; a shame you don't see his good works as laudable, but rather, laughable. I'd rather have the peanut farmer than the pretzel gagger.

Scott: Good work. (singular-habitat for humanity.) Name another?

Jennifer Aniston intrigues me in the way that I wonder why Brad married HER and not ME!

Personally I think the whole push-the-shallow-celebrity bit is a scam. Also, the folks at Purple magazine don't seem to know what "intriguing" means.

Lastly: Scott, a person who does charity work isn't necessarily "intriguing." It's nice of Carter to build homes for the poor; it just isn't "disturbingly provocative."

ooo. good one rita. i was going to say jimmy fallon. but condi rice is even more intriguing than that quiet little ball of adorableness.

Think of it as "The 25 People Whose Inclusion Would Make It Most Likely For Some Fuckwit Standing In The Checkout Aisle To Pay $3.95 For This Crap", and it makes all the sense in the world.

Jennifer Aniston intrigues me in the way that I wonder why she married BRAD and not ME!

I won't bother trying to explain Carter to a bunch of freepers who obviously dislike him and have no desire to regard him as anything other than a fuckup as president.

Nonetheless, can you say "October Surprise?" I knew you could.

What say we start a 25 most intriguing bloggers of 2002 list? And we'd of course use intriguing correctly.

You know, Scott, some of us here are old enough to remember living during the Carter presidency, and we do not need to have him "explained" to us as if he were some piece of abstruse theological dogma. And personally, I can't speak for anyone else here, but I am not a "Freeper," -- I know what it refers to because I looked it up, but I have never read much less participated in the website whence comes that designation. In any case, I did not make any criticism of Carter here -- I merely pointed out that "intriguing" is the wrong word to use for him. The man is not exactly a mysterious, sexy enigma (which the use of the word "intriguing" implies -- it is not merely another way of saying "interesting" or "important").

In defense of People -- shoot me now -- it's an entertainment rag... Again, it's not meant to be read as newsmakers, important people.

Interesting defense. But then, if you're a lefty who thinks that people are basically stupid and must be led around for their own benefit, I suppose it's necessary to defend the publications which might conceivably suggest this is true...

As for Carter: back when I was a young, ignorant, idealistic leftist, I liked Carter; it's just that after watching him for so damned long, I can't ignore the enormous problems his own idealist ignorance has led the country into. And then, too, I got older and outgrew the youthful misunderstandings which made the left seem plausible...

As yet another reader who remembers the years of the Carter Administration (I was in college at the time), Scott, I can't say I remember him fondly. I distinctly remember inflation above 10 percent and interest rates above 20 percent.

I remember seeing the "Breaking News" flash on TV that announced the failure of the rescue mission sent into Iran in April of 1980. I remember watching the "America Held Hostage" number rise day by day throughout 1980. By the time the alleged October Surprise came around, those Americans had been held hostage in Iran for more than ten months.

I remember the worldwide elation when the Camp David agreement was signed, but I also remember the disappointment of the US Summer Olympic athletes when their government told them that they had to give up their Olympic dream for 1980 because the US was boycotting the Moscow Olympics in protest over Soviet actions in Afghanistan.

In short, I remember Carter as an apparently well-intentioned man who could never figure out how to lead the country. I wouldn't want to return to the Carter years.