Watching Paris Hilton legdrop New Jack through a press table

I came up with this metaphor yesterday re: the Paris fighting. So, imagine a debate about a NEW pro-wrestler. Let's say this pro-wrestler didn't work his/her way up as such, but instead just entered with lots of fanfare and you say, oh my God, Paris Hilton is NOT A WRESTLER, and then she starts wrestling and she's really good! You know her as a real-life heel, but she gets out there and her technique and stage presence is great (she doesn't really even present herself as a heel), she's obviously been working very hard at this, and what's more she WINS. The match is exhilirating, she's developed this cruiserweight style that reminds you a little of acrobatic Mexican wrestling, like watching an old ECW match between Rey Mysterio Jr. and Eddie Guerrero Psichosis or something. And then there's her trademark move where she splits into a thousand Parises and they all start singing softly in these complex harmonies to a great dance beat, which lulls her opponent into a state of hypnosis/ecstasy for the finisher -- which, OK, is kind of lame (the last ten minutes have been less exciting, you can tell they're both tired but c'mon it's her first match) and it's the only time you start to think that the style is a little cheesy and clunky...maybe if she just hadn't picked Rod Stewart for her exit music and gone with one of her own compositions, it would have been better. And even as it is, the finisher is sort of appropriately gawdy and true to character, she still earned it even if she didn't nail it.

And the best part is, she really does it on pro wrestling terms! She doesn't stop in the middle to make a phone call to Scott Storch so that he'll come in and finish the job for her or some soap opera bullshit, it's a long, hard-fought, well-planned match, and when she wins you can believe she won.

There are basically two types of critics analyzing the match. The first set says, in effect, GRRRR, WRESTLING IS FAKE AND SO IS PARIS! These idiots have been saying things like this since they were kids excited by a sport that, later in life, they felt to be beneath them -- or maybe never understood or liked in the first place, and found it easier to call "fake" than to figure out why they didn't like it. Since normally they don't watch wrestling matches at all, this isn't a huge deal, but they're watching this one and making annoying sarcastic remarks. They don't judge wrestling for it's artfulness; many have assumed that its audience doesn't see it as a construction, that they're really so stupid as to think that these guys ACTUALLY BREAK EACH OTHER'S NECKS every match and ACTUALLY PLAY THEIR OWN INSTRUMENTS and ACTUALLY WRITE THEIR OWN SONGS! What jerks, to enjoy this obviously staged trash!

Then there are the critics who observe wrestling with some perspective, acknowledging that wrestlers are performers and artists and athletes of varying skill, that they've each constructed a unique (or derivative) persona, that they've developed a style, and these critics understand the pleasures of exploring the many constructions and evolving styles. They can even "let go" and really get into the match internally, both excited to see how the story ends and amazed by the plans and improvisations, the execution of old moves and occasional introduction of new moves and variations, like turning the revolutionary (and now standard) Kelly C. piledriver into a brand new dance-pop PARIS PILEDRIVER, which you have to admit is totally awesome.

This second category of critics hates Paris Hilton for a lot of reasons. Maybe it's because they respect people who have worked their way up in the wrestling world, whose career you can track to the big leagues (although that seems to be getting harder as the league gets consolidated and more difficult to "break into," so it's not like there are a ton of small leagues to be followed [there's always Myspace backyard wrestling, but that's not quite the same]; previous breakthroughs in the big league didn't necessarily work their way to the top, except from a low rung in the big leagues to a higher one). Maybe it's because they just hate Paris -- she has no ambition, no drive, she's bad bad bad, everything that's wrong with America, even. But that makes her a heel, and those attributes are integral to her character, just as Vince McMahon turned his own entreprenurial-turned-megalomaniacal persona into a decent heel -- which still required him to wrestle well, even if he did "buy" the position. Maybe they don't want to pay for a match that funds Paris's adventures in being hyper-rich. Well, with that sort of logic, they'd need to stop contributing to a lot of paid matches, either by not paying for it or by not watching it (although, even though Vince and Paris are hyper-rich, a lot of others aren't; there are shades of class within the spectrum of wrestling just as there are outside it, requiring one to grapple with the whole damn "system," if that's the word you want to use). ...And anyway, when the option not to pay for it is so easy, why deny watching a good match? Paris doesn't care if you pay, she's building a character here, her money comes from the success and continuation of her character, not from pay-per-view royalties.

Maybe some don't know what to hate. They get embarrassed sometimes when they acknowledge parts of the culture that surround pro-wrestling; they feel they don't want to be a part of it, even though they've found people who feel the same way they do about it, people who can examine it thoughtfully and enjoy it without always agreeing with its sexual politics or class politics or any politics, really. They can talk about that stuff, too, but it has its place in an argument and can't be grounds for outright dismissal. And yet with Paris, there's the urge to dismiss it, to finally construct the Big Evil that the weirdo first category of haters have constructed for themselves. Because it's EASIER to call it fake, to dismiss it, to believe that pro-wrestling exists in a social or political or whatever sort of vacuum and that by shutting it off, or even parts of it off, the problems that it supposedly represents will be that much easier to take. People think: if it just wasn't Paris Hilton, I could enjoy myself. But it IS her -- here in front of me is the target of all of my frustrations about everything I can think of, sex, money, social position, apathy, all rolled into a convenient mascot-waif. And she's in the ring and the match is phenomenal (or at least GOOD, maybe you just don't like her technique, but it's good for what it is) and I'm conflicted! But that's part of the thrill, part of the conversation.

But instead of using that confusion and frustration and conflict as a means of further provocation and enrichment, instead of appreciating how the conversations you can have about this match are different and possibly more exciting from the ones about other matches because of who Paris was before she got in the ring, you shut it down, because it's impossible not to act and the only alternative to shutting it down is to invest your time and energy even more, maybe more than you usually do -- maybe it will make you question why you watch (/listen, OK finally time to drop the metaphor) in the first place, which is why this thread has been so strange and wonderful, as all the best ones are.