I might be more interested in celebrity news if we had more interesting celebrities. It's not mean to say that I don't care what they do or say; they don't care what I do or say.
This headline popped up in my news feed: "Dwayne Johnson says he's the 'opposite of a not-washing-themselves celeb.' "
Johnson, also known as the Rock, appears to be an amiable, well-grounded, normal fellow. His nickname comes from his physique, not the igneous or sedimentary composition of his head. He's been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate, simply because everyone loves the Rock, and it can't hurt his chances now that we know he is the "opposite of a not-washing-themselves celeb."
As it happens, I know what he's talking about. Two other celebs recently announced that they do not bathe. Maybe they rub themselves with fine sandpaper on Saturdays, but otherwise, nope! Bathing is not natural.
At least that explains how they met: Everyone else at the party was standing 20 feet away. You wonder how this came up in an interview; asking "Do you bathe?" suggests that the interviewer was distracted by an epic funk, or perhaps the aroma of her own nostril hairs combusting, or the sight of paint peeling and ferns swooning.
Or perhaps they announced it themselves because they had not been in the news for a while. The internet celebrity "media" is a rapacious beast that requires new stories every 42 seconds. That means that you can get a Yahoo headline if you announce that you have renounced toenail clippers and perform pedal maintenance by sticking your feet in a bucket of lightly sedated piranhas.
What makes this interesting, in a not-at-all-interesting sort of way, is that some celeb reporter heard this news and thought, "What's the Rock's take on this?"
It's not that unusual; his roles are usually sweaty. He's currently starring in "Jungle Cruise," based on a Disney World ride that takes you through an ersatz tropical estuary. In the movie, he is no doubt wearing prominently soaked khakis, so it's not an absurd question. But you can pity the poor cub reporter who returns to the office, and the gruff-but-lovable editor barks, "Did you get a Rock quote on the soap flap? Washcloth or loofah? Speak up, we go to press in 10 minutes!"
Oh, you say, it's always been so. Look at People magazine. I will not, because I am not in a dentist's office. But the last time I looked, it was practically Foreign Affairs compared with internet celeb writing.
Before People, there were magazines that did the publicists' bidding and slathered the stars with buttery love. Every other month you'd see a story about the tragic fact that Liberace hadn't found a wife yet.
At the same time, there was a parallel world of scandal mags: Mitchum faces reefer beef! Sophia Loren caught up in pasta-smuggling ring! But you cannot imagine any mag asking Frank Sinatra if he shampooed, possibly because he'd sock the reporter in the jaw.
We need less celebrity news, is what I'm saying. And fewer celebrities. Or perhaps we could do wonders for our mental health and turn off the internet for five years, just to see how we'd cope. If nothing else, people starved for celeb news might visit the dentist more often.
james.lileks@startribune.com • Twitter: @Lileks • facebook.com/james.lileks
