4

This word should fit in this blank:

A: Why are you wasting your time listening to that album?
B: All my classmates are huge fans of this singer!
A: That's only because s/he is (a) _____ .

Phrases or idioms referring to such a person will also be appreciated.

2
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. Commented Nov 3, 2015 at 1:52
  • @BennyBottema Sorry; I can't choose a best between the present answers. Yours is a nice answer nonetheless. Thanks. :)
    – Færd
    Commented Sep 13, 2016 at 20:44

8 Answers 8

4

Because s/he is (over) hyped / hyped-up.

The subject didn't reach its height on its own merits. Rather, it was boosted by a hype machine, marketing scheme, fad or viral campaign. Some external factor to the person in question.

From the Cambridge dictionary:

Overhype: Make exaggerated claims about (a product, idea, or event); publicize or promote excessively:

"the film was overhyped by the press"

2
  • i've never heard of a person being called a "hype", but saying "they are over-hyped or overly hyped" makes sense to me. could be a regional difference, though. "hyped" alone doesn't do it, because a person could be hyped and also be very talented. in other words, some people get hyped for a good reason, while others don't.
    – user428517
    Commented Oct 29, 2015 at 20:33
  • Agreed, answer updated. Commented Oct 29, 2015 at 20:37
3

There are numerous terms, such as fad

An intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived and without basis in the object’s qualities; a craze: prairie restoration is the latest gardening fad in the Midwest

Oxford Dictionaries Online

Similarly

  • craze
  • flash in the pan
  • the rage
  • passing fancy
  • the latest thing
  • whim
  • novelty
  • gimmick
  • hot shit (taboo and very negative)
1
  • Like a craze, passing fancy, whim and gimmick, a fad is a thing (a fleeting enthusiasm), not a person. If you could apply it to people it would be great. Furthermore, non of the terms (maybe other than fad) mention a person's inability.
    – Færd
    Commented Oct 29, 2015 at 16:41
2

You don’t specify the age or gender of the classmates (you do, however, say “all my classmates”), so depending on the context/type of school you could say:

“That's only because he is (a/n) “[no-talent/untalented] hit with the ladies (from ‘Graces Movies’ under 17. Alex Pettyfer) (for settings where the classmates are all females of all ages)

(note that the lack of talent here would have to be limited to his singing talent; otherwise using across-the-board "no-talent"/"untalented" with "a hit with the ladies" would be an oxymoron, in my opinion);

or in another context:

““That's only because s/he is a “no-talent teenybopper

or

“… because s/he is a/n ““[no-talent/untalented] hit with [the] teenyboppers" (from Google Books and Wikipedia)

(primarily in settings where the classmates are adolescent girls, but in spite of Wikipedia’s definition, adolescent boys can be “teenyboppers.”)

For a phrase that could work for all friends and acquaintances of all shapes and sizes (and which wouldn't necessarily require adding "no-talent" or "untalented" because that notion is already built-in), you might say:

“That's only because s/he is a lightweight (alone as a noun)/lightweight pretender (as an adjective with ‘pretender’) with a damn/ed good agent/who must have a damn good agent.”

Lightweight-noun: “3. A person of little ability, intelligence, influence, or importance.” (from ‘The American Heritage Dictionary’)

Example use of “lightweight pretender” from ‘Drive’ by Clayton Lachmund via Google Books)

Example use of “must have a damn good agent” from a random ‘Whisper’ user’s reaction to Ben Affleck getting the role as Batman.

Please note that all of the above could be preceded by “nothing but/nothing more than” for emphasis (as in the example from ‘Drive’) but it wouldn’t be necessary.

3
  • I didn't want to limit the scope. I wish I'd used friends instead of classmates. Nevertheless, to be a hit with teenyboppers is a good one!
    – Færd
    Commented Oct 29, 2015 at 18:37
  • Oh that is nice. +1.
    – A.P.
    Commented Oct 29, 2015 at 18:43
  • @Farid Thanks. I've just added an option meant to be more context-neutral for your consideration.
    – Papa Poule
    Commented Oct 29, 2015 at 22:37
1

"That's only because he(she) had his(her) 15 minutes of fame".

From Wikipedia: it is short-lived media publicity or celebrity of an individual or phenomenon.

The expression is credited to Andy Warhol, who included the words "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes" in the program for a 1968 exhibition of his work at the Moderna Museet in Stockholm.

6
  • What if the situation lasted for, say, 10 years?
    – Færd
    Commented Oct 29, 2015 at 18:46
  • You may then refer to "his moments of glory", "his moment in the sun" or "his glory days".
    – Graffito
    Commented Oct 29, 2015 at 19:14
  • This phrase isn't generally used while the person is popular, because you can't tell that they're just a flash in the pan. It usually gets used after their fame has faded.
    – Barmar
    Commented Oct 29, 2015 at 20:57
  • @Barmar - This expression refers to "a very short time in the spotlight or brief flurry with fame, after which the person is or will be quickly forgotten". If you say that for a person still under the spotlights, it means that you believe that his celebrity will fall soon.
    – Graffito
    Commented Oct 29, 2015 at 21:10
  • How would you use this to fill in the blank in the question?
    – Barmar
    Commented Oct 29, 2015 at 21:18
1

Assuming the singer/actor guy is popular with teenage girls, let me offer another alternative in the vein of @Papa Poule's fine answer:

That's only because he's an untalented tween heartthrob.

heartthrob: a famous actor, singer etc who is very attractive to women

(Longman)

tween: a girl ages about 9-14... too old for toys, but too young for boys.

Very easy to market to, will usually follow any fashion trend set for them

(https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tween)

1

Well I don't think this works with your sample dialogue, but to answer the title question, I'd suggest "hack." It's defined in part as:

one who produces banal and mediocre work in the hope of gaining commercial success in the arts

0

I'll suggest the simple 'popular':

  1. adapted to the tastes, means, etc., of ordinary persons

[popular. (n.d.) Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary. (2010). Retrieved October 29 2015 from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/popular].

If that isn't sufficient for your use, it could be appropriately modified with 'undeservedly', as in 'undeservedly popular'.

un·de·served (ŭn′dĭ-zûrvd′) Not merited; unjustifiable or unfair.
un′de·serv′ed·ly (-zûr′vĭd-lē) adv.

[undeservedly. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved October 29 2015 from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/undeservedly].

0

From the foregoing discussion it sounds as though media celebrity might fit.

7
  • 2
    Wouldn't this be better suited as a comment? Commented Oct 29, 2015 at 20:17
  • This flaw, if existing, has hardly anything to do with lingual matters.
    – Færd
    Commented Oct 29, 2015 at 20:22
  • My thoughts nearly were a comment. The thing is, I don't believe there is a meaningful universal 'put down' word to fill the blank in your question. The reasons why an individual may not share classmates'/friends' enthusiasm for the latest 'star' are as many and varied as the reasons why each new star is born. Unless you narrow down the characteristics of the new star it seems to me that the variety of reasons for not joining in with the crowd make it impossible meaningfully to fill your blank space. Every unenthusiastic individual will have their own reason (different for each new 'star').
    – Dan
    Commented Oct 29, 2015 at 21:03
  • Often not liking someone strongly says more about the person not liking than the object of their derision. This is another reason why I feel the OP is flawed.
    – Dan
    Commented Oct 29, 2015 at 21:07
  • I'd changed the title from "a lousy actor etc" to "a low-grade actor etc" for the exact reason: so it wouldn't have been just an opinion-based not-liking. Unless you mean to dismisd critical evaluation as a flawed act (which would be an act of criticism itself), the title alone should be clear. The context is more like an illustrative example.
    – Færd
    Commented Oct 29, 2015 at 21:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .