Forum Mojo

This is the thing: Alex Jones and Oscar Wilde are entertainers. Good for a few yucks, and disposable.

Both are famous entertainers. Let us experiment with the idea of “stickiness” substituted for fame.

Why is Alex Jones stickier than Oscar Wilde? But they are both sticky, in different ways.

Does one speculate we’ll be anthologizing, studying and reading Alex Jones one hundred and twenty-five years from now? Oscar Wilde has this stickiness, not Alex Jones. Oscar died at forty. Alex is now fifty-one, and “going strong”. Sticky strong. Alex has more life-stickiness than Oscar. As we correlate vitality with life-stickiness, anecdotally, Alex has more vitality. As we correlate masculinity with vitality, Alex has more vitality-stickiness, too. As we associate studying, reading, ‘riting, (and $rithmetic), with femininity, perhaps Oscar has enduring literary stickiness in excess of Alex due to Oscar’s androgyny.

Ah! Gynecological exams into Oscar’s literary masterpieces have revealed testosterone deficiencies in Oscar’s gonads. Geostratigraphic analyses have revealed tubes, or vesicles, seminiferous in nature, seminal, as Oscar is seminal in literature, though according to this logic, one can only be fallopian in literature, going from Oscar’s stickiness, over into Alex’s, via testosterone transfusion. Oscar bit Alex in the neck, welcoming Alex into undead-stickiness; Oscar-Jeckyll Alex-Hyde; Oscar-Clark Kent Alex-Superman; Oscar wolfman Alex Wolfman Jack disc jockey nightlife moonlight broadcaster, bombast, superglue sticky ya hooo!