John Scalzi is doing this cool feature on Whatever where he takes lets readers ask him questions, to which he provides thoughtful and entertaining answers. I've thought about doing this (and did it for a brief time on Radio Free Burrito) but I'm not all that good at it, especially when John sets the bar as high as he does.
Today, he was asked a question about fame that goes something like this: ". . . you have the perfect type of fame. You are unlikely to be mobbed in the streets, however, at certain places (ConFusion, for example, we were on our way there when we had this discussion), you are among the most famous, most recognized, and most well-respected people in the room. Do you agree that this is the perfect fame level, or would being just a little bit more, or even a little bit less, famous suit you better?"
In fact, it goes exactly like that, due to the power of copy and paste.
John's answer is pretty much what I would say, if I were asked the same question:
I am famous in a very constrained and limited way, to a small number of people, who have to go to a certain place at a certain time in order to see me at all: usually a science fiction convention or a book signing. Outside these constrained and limited circumstances, I am distinctly unfamous; indeed, as a late-thirties balding man of modest height, weight and physical attractiveness, I am practically invisible to anyone under the age of 30, and visible to anyone over that age only to the extent that they have to walk around me, or have to have some limited amount of social interaction with me as we stand in a line or some such.
I am not balding (yet) and I have the occasional "Hey, I think I know you from someplace . . . oh, you used to be an actor lulz!" thing, but for the most part, I, like John, have exactly the right amount of unfamousness. In fact, when I'm at a con, I never rise to the level of "most recognized, and most well-respected people in the room" because if I'm lucky, I'm standing in line to meet that person.