I'd say Lady Gaga has "personality" rather than charisma or looks, but we may be using different words for the same thing (and I think it's what Glee called "theatricality"). Love or hate her, but you can't ignore her.

Or more simply, she has "It." And I don't have a specific definition. But it's the star quality Ann Margret had in a stage production of The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas when she (a lady of a certain age wearing a pantsuit) sang with a chorus of negligee-clad young women -- and all eyes in the audience were on her.

Flat Stanley photo collection is priceless!

He totally enjoyed the derby practice.

Wasn't he the one who did that one thing that one time?

He did! The thing with the stuff.

(But seriously. This is the same guy who published an independent comic this one time that I totally meant to ask my comic book store to look into ordering but I didn't because I forgot the name and stuff?)

Love or hate her, but you can't ignore her.

Meh. No, you can. I don't get the fuss.

(But seriously. This is the same guy who published an independent comic this one time that I totally meant to ask my comic book store to look into ordering but I didn't because I forgot the name and stuff?)

He is -- it's called Fyre Dragon. There are 4 issues (maybe 5?) out.

I'd say Lady Gaga has "personality" rather than charisma or looks, but we may be using different words for the same thing (and I think it's what Glee called "theatricality"). Love or hate her, but you can't ignore her.

Or more simply, she has "It."

I think she does have talent. And she worked the "It" factor pretty well in the beginning, but now she's running the risk of being nothing but gimmick.

I think the music business has been notoriously bad about pushing "acts" as opposed to actual singing talent. There are a couple of singers that push a look or act that have immense amount of talent but probably wouldn't have made it as big as they have without the act.

In consulting, the saying was always that you can have two of these three: fast, cheap, good. You can't have all three, and you're stupid to try.

As for the requirements for performers, I think a fair amount of determination can sub in for looks. That's what gym workouts, makeup, and style do, if you didn't win the genetic lottery. And seriously: not even Angelina Jolie looks like a movie star when she's shlepping the garbage cans to the curb at 6 AM.

I read the discussion last night about art and Plan B, and I think, frankly, there are too many variables at work to make any fast rules. Some people produce their best work when they are financially secure, even if it means getting up at 5AM and writing through their lunch breaks; for others, they have to have no other demands/distractions, so the art is all-consuming.

John Scalzi and Jim Hines are both SFF novelists; Scalzi made of his writing a business--it's his only source of income (although his wife is employed). Hines works a 9-5 job and fits the writing in around his other obligations. I can't say either one of them is a better artist, although Scalzi's more successful and better-known. Is his work better as Art? Who the fuck knows?

But I do think it's bullshit to say there are hard-and-fast rules that must apply to the production of art. There's no knowing how many people dove into the creative life without a Plan B, didn't make it work, and ended up taking on a job as a mid-level bureaucrat because they would rather eat than starve. For every Michael J. Fox, there's got to be dozens of young actors that didn't get the big break, and ended up back in Camloops slinging burgers.

As for myself, I work 40 hours a week and look after my parents and have a social life and exercise--and I still managed to write a 100,000-word novel in the last year. When I have had plenty of free time on my hands, I tend not to be as productive, creatively. So there's some anecdata for you.

ETA: And there is a DIFFERENCE between financial success and producing great art, too! Which we appear to be eliding.

Hines works a 9-5 job and fits the writing in around his other obligations.

I always admired Stephen Cannell because he had a work ethic about writing like no one else. Back before he was successful, he had a full time job working for his father-in-law. So he'd get up every morning at 4 am and write before work. He'd write during lunch. Then he'd write again after the kids were in bed.

I needed a nap after just hearing about his schedule. But I actually think his work ethic and determination is what made him so successful.

Stephen King (and his family) were all but starving on a teacher's salary when he managed to sell Carrie.