Question Of Fame
 

'It's better to be economically comfortable for life than to be rich and famous for three years then lose it all.' Discuss.


Edit: You live the same length of time either way.

Re: Question Of Fame
 

"Would you rather live for a year as a lion or a lifetime as a worm"

Re: Question Of Fame
 

I'd rather be rich and famous for 3 years, then pretend to lose it all but live the rest of my life very comfortably...but it will never happen as my wife would spend it all in about 2 hours.

Re: Question Of Fame
 

Life - for me - Quality over Quantity every time.

Re: Question Of Fame
 

"I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them." --Ian Fleming

He died at 56. Not exactly optimal, despite his successes.

Re: Question Of Fame
 

being rich and famous for 3 years to then suddenly lose it all, surely can't mean anything else than that you've been an incredible imbecile.
so i too go for the 'life' option.

Re: Question Of Fame
 

I'd rather have written the Iliad.

Re: Question Of Fame
 

You and many others.

Re: Question Of Fame
 

What if you gave it all away in an act of charity, or simply to show you could rise from nothing to greatness again? (Admittedly, "loss" does imply it wasn't on purpose)

In any case, I don't really value "fame" in the sense of being some kind of star, but being comfortable would mean I could dedicate more time to various projects, so I'll take the life of comfort.

Re: Question Of Fame
 

Surely if you're rich and famous for 3 years you could easily get back to comfortable status somehow even if you drop back to square one for a bit?

Not really bothered about being famous (I guess it depends what for) and the rich bit isn't something I care about too much either.

So comfortable.

Re: Question Of Fame
 

Being rich is something I wouldn't mind, though I would never want to be famous. Seems like an awful lot of hassle to me.

Living comfortably my entire life would be the preferred choice though.