This article was downloaded by: [Northwestern University]

On: 10 January 2015, At: 22:07

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Celebrity Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcel20

Animal celebrities
a
David C. Giles
a
University of Winchester , Winchester , UK
Published online: 25 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: David C. Giles (2013) Animal celebrities, Celebrity Studies, 4:2, 115-128, DOI:
10.1080/19392397.2013.791040

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2013.791040

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Celebrity Studies, 2013
Vol. 4, No. 2, 115–128, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2013.791040

Animal celebrities
David C. Giles*

University of Winchester, Winchester, UK

(Received 8 March 2012; final version received 2 January 2013)

Academic study of celebrity has hitherto been mostly based on the assumption that
celebrities are human, and even semiotic theories of celebrity have been built around
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 22:07 10 January 2015

the notion that a ‘real person’ exists at its centre. In this paper I problematise this notion
by discussing the case of animal celebrities, who lack many of the characteristics asso-
ciated with celebrity and yet are discursively constituted as such by media and their
audiences. I propose a taxonomy of animal celebrities and present detailed studies of
three recent cases, all based in Germany, where captive animals have been celebri-
tised by national and international media. Focusing on the collective mechanics of press
and publicity, I demonstrate the operation of the celebrity/celebrification process and
discuss the implications this has for our understandings of celebrity in general.
Keywords: theories of celebrity; semiotics; taxonomy; the celebrity industry;
publicity; animals

Introduction
The past year has seen the high-profile deaths of two popular German celebrities: an octo-
pus and a polar bear. Paul ‘the psychic octopus’ died from natural causes in October
2010 and had a memorial statue erected a few months later at the aquarium in Oberhausen
from where his World Cup predictions had been publicised the previous summer. Knut the
polar bear died in his enclosure at Berlin Zoo in March 2011 following several years of
stardom during which he played himself in a feature film, was the subject of several songs
and appeared with Leonardo di Caprio on the cover of Vanity Fair.
Up to now most, if not all, academic studies of celebrity have focused exclusively on
human beings. One of the earliest, Boorstin (1962, p. 57), refers to ‘the person [my italics]
who is known for his well-knownness’. A more recent theory, Turner’s (2010a) ‘demotic
turn’, is based on the trend for ‘ordinary people’ to be cultivated as celebrities by the
media. Even Marshall’s (1997, p. xi) semiotic theory of celebrity is developed around the
authenticity of the ‘real person’ that is ‘housed in the sign construction’. According to this
theory, it is necessary that the individual at the centre of the celebrity construction is a
human being, since there is so much cultural capital resting on the notion of the private
individual with a distinctive personality.
Unsurprisingly, most of the elements that are said to characterise celebrity as a social
and cultural phenomenon are predicated on the assumption that the celebrities themselves

*Email: david.giles@winchester.ac.uk

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

 116 D.C. Giles

are human beings. One of the most influential theories of celebrity derives from an argu-
ment that stars ‘articulate what it is to be a human being in contemporary society’ (Dyer
1986, p. 8). Central to the appeal of ‘stars’ are such psychological processes as self-
identification and imitation (Dyer 1979). The process of ‘celebrification’, argues Rojek
(2001, p. 189), is rooted in the global mobilisation of desire, through which ‘celebrities
humanize desire [author’s italics]’.1
In this paper, I propose to challenge some of these assumptions by examining a form
of celebrity where there is no ‘real’ or ‘authentic’ person at the centre, and any notion of
personality is simply an anthropomorphic projection. By doing this, I wish to develop the
idea that celebrity is essentially a process by which media turn individuals (not necessar-
ily humans) into objects of desire. Turner’s (2010a, p. 15) demotic-turn theory accords
the media a determining role in this process: rather than ‘pick[ing] up’ celebrities from
domains such as sports and public relations, ‘the media have begun to produce celebrity on
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 22:07 10 January 2015

their own [author’s italics]’. I would argue that the engineering of celebrity by traditional
media such as newspapers, radio and television has simply become more brazen; there is
less reticence about revealing the processes of celebritisation. Celebrities have never been
‘picked up’ fully formed. There is still the risk that the engineering process will fail, that
audiences will refuse to engage with a particular figure, that the figure will self-destruct of
his or her own accord, or simply refuse to co-operate.
For Marshall (1997, p. 11), the celebrity sign ‘can attach to and detach from objects at
will’. At an individual level, this means that celebrities are effectively interchangeable and
shed all sense of subjectivity. The ‘actual person [. . .] disappears into a cultural forma-
tion of meaning’ (Marshall 1997, p. 57). Where an animal, rather than a ‘real person’, is
housed in the sign construction, celebrity is finally reduced to its exchange value. Although
like humans, animal celebrities are invested with affective power, this power can never be
compromised by accusations of emotional manipulation (at least not by the celebrity itself)
or by ill-considered acts or utterances. Once the animal celebrity–audience relationship is
successfully established, only the death of the animal can ruin things.
If animals can function as perfect, symbolic, examples of celebrity, what might we
learn from studying them? It is possible that they allow us to see the operation of the
celebrity system untroubled by any phenomenological considerations: any application of
the attributions we might make about human celebrities (such as emotional reactions to spe-
cific events) runs the risk of anthropomorphism. This leaves us with only the processes of
celebrity production and consumption, allowing us to ask why, and how, a single individual
becomes a celebrity; and how, and why, its fans respond in a particular way.
In order to marshal animal celebrities to the above (former) purpose, I set out in this
paper to propose a basic taxonomy of animal celebrity, followed by three detailed case
studies of animals that have generated extensive media coverage in recent years.

Animal celebrities through history

The concept of animal celebrities is hardly new. As early as the 1920s Hollywood made
stars of dogs such as Stubby, the American war dog promoted to the rank of sergeant dur-
ing World War I, and Strongheart the German shepherd (Silverman 2001), followed later
by Rin Tin Tin and Lassie. Scientific experimentation brought fame to a sheep (Dolly,
the first cloned mammal), a chimpanzee (Washoe, who was taught American sign lan-
guage) and a parrot (Alex, the subject of a 30-year study in the psychology of speech).
Animals have often made news headlines for acts of heroism: perhaps the most famous
in England is Pickles, a mongrel dog that discovered the stolen Jules Rimet World Cup
 Celebrity Studies 117

trophy three months before the 1966 tournament began in London. A more recent example
is the Belgian shepherd dog Chocolat, who sniffed out a booby-trapped Taliban factory in
Afghanistan, potentially saving several soldiers’ lives.
In addition to these, zoos and other institutions with captive animals have long culti-
vated their own star attractions, continuing the tradition of Victorian circuses. While circus
animals tended to be celebrated for exceptional skills or tricks, such as the elephants Salt
and Sauce who performed for several post-war British circuses, celebrated zoo animals are
more likely to be examples of rare or endangered species, such as Guy the Gorilla, who
was used extensively during the 1960s and 1970s to advertise London Zoo, or Ming Ming,
a panda who died in Guangdong in China during May 2011 at the exceptional age of 34.
Other animals become famous largely because they are owned by celebrities, such
as Paris Hilton’s dog Tinkerbell, who is often included in press pictures, and Michael
Jackson’s chimpanzee Bubbles (now in captivity). World leaders’ pets are guaranteed
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 22:07 10 January 2015

celebrity, nowhere more than in the United States, where the presidential family dog has
attained the iconic status of ‘First Dog’ ever since Warren G. Harding’s promotion of his
own Airedale terrier in the 1920s (Pycior 2005). At present Barack Obama’s family own a
Portuguese water dog named Bo, while David Cameron and his wife acquired a tabby cat
called Larry in early 2011. Both have some way to go to match the fame of Bill Clinton’s
cat Socks or the resident Downing Street cat Humphrey, who served under several prime
ministers in the 1980s and 1990s.

The appeal of animal celebrities

Stripped of all human pretence, animals can never be held responsible for their celebrity
status: no ulterior motive is necessary. They therefore wear the badge of authenticity that is
held to be so important for credible image-management; there is never any question as to
whether or not they are ‘being themselves’ (Tolson 2001). Since a good deal of the pleasure
experienced by celebrity fans is said to be the working out of psychological puzzles posed
by the authenticity dilemma (Gamson 1994), and the effort expended in uncovering the
‘veridical self’ behind the public mask (Rojek 2001, p. 11), this should make an animal a
poor choice of celebrity.
Nevertheless, individual animals indisputably have public appeal, suggesting that it is
not necessary for audiences to work through the dilemmas of authenticity/contrivance and
real/false in order for them to display continued interest in following a specific celebrity.
It is therefore more likely that the appeal of animal celebrities derives solely from the
affective power invested in them by audiences. To cite Marshall (1997, pp. 73–74) again:

The concept of affect is central for understanding the meaning and power of the celebrity in
contemporary culture [. . .] the celebrity represents a site for the housing of affect in terms of
both the audience and the institutions that have worked to produce the cultural forms that have
allowed the celebrity to develop.

Affect is also an important psychological component of the parasocial relationship

that audiences develop with media figures (Schramm and Hartmann 2008). Ultimately,
the celebrity need only be a photogenic representative of a given species for audiences to
develop a sympathetic attachment, once a specific incident, or broad narrative, brings them
into contact with the figure. So in 1966 the discovery of the stolen Jules Rimet trophy intro-
duced Pickles as a dog with detective prowess, but audiences then wanted to know more
about Pickles, to follow his later adventures, and so on, up to his untimely death.2
 118 D.C. Giles

But animal celebrities are not always photogenic. Paul the octopus was not idolised
for his looks. One of the most celebrated animals of the last decade, the New Zealand
merino sheep Shrek, became famous for the 27-kilogram fleece that he had accumulated
while evading the shearers, not in itself an endearing feature. Indeed, the farmer’s wife
who first discovered the unshorn Shrek reportedly cried: ‘I’ve just seen this thing!’ (BBC
2004). Nevertheless, there is little doubt that Shrek attained celebrity status as a result of
his freakish appearance, even being taken to the New Zealand parliament to meet the then
Prime Minister Helen Clark.
The fame that attached to Paul and Shrek was due to something other than mere
visual appeal. In both instances they demonstrated qualities that have been interpreted
as human (or even superhuman). Paul was celebrated for his apparent ability to predict
the outcome of football games; Shrek for his apparent cunning in dodging sheep farm-
ers by living (‘hiding’) in caves for six years. It may be that animals become celebrities
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 22:07 10 January 2015

because they exhibit (or are attributed) human characteristics, such as Nora the Piano Cat
(http://norathepianocat.com/), who does not merely run up and down the keyboard but sits
patiently on the stool and strokes the keys like a small child. Indeed, it would seem that,
the less species-appropriate the behaviour, the greater the chances of celebrification.

A taxonomy of animal celebrities

The first purpose of the current paper is to sketch a putative taxonomy of animal celebri-
ties, which is intended primarily to define the parameters of the phenomenon and act as a
reference for future research on the topic, rather like the taxonomies of human celebrity
outlined by Turner (2004, pp. 20–23). These existing taxonomies are of limited use with
animals because all include at least one category that relies on the celebrity having some
degree of agency in obtaining, or aspiring to, fame. Nevertheless, there are some overlap-
ping criteria. For instance, Giles’ (2000) taxonomy of fame distinguished (a) public figures;
(b) the meritocratically famous; (c) show business ‘stars’; and (d) the accidentally famous.
With regard to animals, we could argue that the pets of world leaders meet the criteria
for the first category and that animals with some demonstrable uniqueness (for example,
the largest or smallest on record) equate to meritocratic celebrities, but it is impossible to
distinguish between the remaining categories since ‘accidental fame’ presupposes that the
other famous animals have engineered their own celebrity to some extent. Meanwhile, very
few animal celebrities are captured by the first two categories.
Of the other taxonomies of celebrity listed by Turner (2004), only Monaco’s (1978)
offers up a category that could be applied to animals – that of ‘hero’, which could include
war dogs and other animals that have saved lives or performed altruistic deeds for humans
or other animals. But this is still a rather small category, and would again be reliant on
anthropomorphic interpretation of animal behaviour.
In the absence of credible human taxonomies that could be applied here, then, there
follows an attempt to group together animal celebrities into four broad categories.

(1) Anthropomorphic. The first category consists of animals who are anthropomor-
phised in some way, having human qualities attributed to them – and in some cases,
superhuman qualities (for example, Paul the octopus). Such creatures have long
been exhibits in the media circus, from lifesaving dogs to piano-playing cats, and
we should include in this category animals which have become celebrated as aca-
demic research participants, such as Washoe, the chimpanzee taught sign language,
and Clever Hans the counting horse. In each case here the animal is celebrated
 Celebrity Studies 119

because of its ability (or presumed ability) to perform a behaviour thought to be

uniquely human.
(2) Promotional. The second category involves captive animals which have been the
subject of a news story and have subsequently generated a fan following. Typically
these animals have the important function of generating publicity for the zoo or
other institution where they are kept. In many cases they represent rare or endan-
gered species such as pandas and gorillas, such as a male introduced to impregnate
females, or a new baby. Other examples include animals which are rescued from
dangerous circumstances who become the subject of long-running news items
(with numerous updates on their welfare).
(3) Freak. The third category consists of animals which are primarily celebrated for
reasons of freakery (Yuan 1996): two-headed snakes and other conjoined siblings;
animals who break records for size or other physical attributes; cross-breeds and
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 22:07 10 January 2015

other genetically tailored curiosities. This category also tends to feature animals
in captivity, although their celebrity is likely to be short-lived, since such animals
tend to lack the affective power of more conventional species representatives such
as those found in the second category of animal celebrities (also, in most cases,
such animals have short lifespans).
(4) Celebrity pets. The final category contains relatively few famous animals, and
is effectively the equivalent of Giles’ (2000) ‘public figures’ category of human
celebrities. These are animals that cannot help but be well-known because of their
owners: they achieve fame through association, usually with leading political fig-
ures such as the US president. Of course, the longer the association continues and
the more closely the celebrity associates with his or her pet, the more famous the
animal.

Three case studies

In this section, I have selected three animals that have featured extensively in global
media over the last two years, and correspond roughly to each of the first three categories
described above. The following case studies are largely descriptive accounts of the animals’
rise to fame and continued celebrity status, although there follows a general discussion
identifying common characteristics that carry theoretical implications. I have neglected to
present a case study for the fourth category in the taxonomy, since it is a small and quite
restricted category, while the first three have considerable overlap.

Paul the octopus

Paul the octopus achieved international fame during the summer of 2010 when global
media carried reports of his predictive powers during the latter stages of the football World
Cup in South Africa. By the end of the tournament he had correctly predicted the results
of all seven matches played by Germany and the final between Spain and the Netherlands
(Batty 2010). At times he seemed to generate as much media discussion as the football
itself in a competition arguably short of footballing heroes (Crossland 2011).
The Paul story started running worldwide around 6 July after leading German dailies
reported the disturbing news that Paul had tipped Spain to win the forthcoming semi-
final against Germany 3 . The prediction was deemed particularly newsworthy since Paul’s
previous six predictions for games involving Germany had all been correct, including an
early, and unexpected, group stage defeat by Serbia. This was followed by further bursts of
 120 D.C. Giles

media interest in the run-up to the final (who would Paul back?), his success in selecting
Spain and his eventual death in October 2010. He was continuing to attract global press
attention the following year, with the erection of a statue in his aquarium containing his
ashes, an exhibition in the same venue and the impending release of a spoof documentary
(see www.seerofseers.com).4
Media interest in Paul’s predictions has been augmented by extensive online video
coverage of the actual trials, provided by his owners Sea Life, a highly successful UK-
based chain of aquaria with 26 centres across North America and Europe. The videos,
in which the octopus is seen gliding serenely towards two boxes displaying the flags of
the competing teams and selecting a mussel contained in the eventual winning team’s
box, were relayed on TV-news bulletins countless times during the latter stages of the
World Cup.
Several conspiracy theories generated further Paul-related media coverage. A Chinese
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 22:07 10 January 2015

film-maker claimed that Paul had actually died before making his World Cup final predic-
tion and had been replaced by a different octopus (Branigan et al. 2010). A longer-running
conspiracy theory surrounds the claims of animal hunter Verena Bartsch that she fished
‘Paul’ out of the sea near the Italian island of Elba in April 2010, selling him to the Sea
Life chain two months later (Grix 2010)5 . Italian media were quick to claim him as their
own; not just Italian, but Tuscan (La Repubblica 2010). This ‘revelation’ contradicted the
version of events previously given by Sea Life, who claimed he was born at their aquar-
ium in Weymouth, England, although inconsistencies regarding the actual date of his birth
and his subsequent transfer to Oberhausen have lent weight to the Bartsch story. Indeed,
so compelling is the latter claim that an Italian website has since been created to promote
‘Paolo il Polpo’ (www.elbadipaul.it).6
What is the ultimate emblem of international fame? To be mentioned by political lead-
ers would seem to be a good candidate. After backing Spain in the semi-final against
Germany, Spanish Prime Minister José Zapatero expressed his concern for Paul’s safety
during a radio interview (Mucientes 2010). After the tournament, it was reported that
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had referred to Paul several times during a
speech in Tehran, denouncing him as a symbol of decadence and decay and a spreader
of Western propaganda (Hall 2010). Certainly this interpretation of Paul’s influence would
seem to fit with Marshall’s (1997, pp. 246) claim that ‘celebrities are manifestations of the
organisation of culture in terms of democracy and capitalism’.
Paul is one of many animals to be fêted for their clairvoyant abilities. Indeed, he was
matched all the way up to the World Cup final by a parakeet from Singapore named Mani
(Batty 2010), and numerous other pet owners and zoos unveiled their own resident ‘psy-
chics’ during the tournament. Animals make ideal clairvoyants for the very same reason
they make perfect celebrities: their authenticity is beyond question. If an animal gets it
right eight out of eight times, it must either be endowed with a supernatural ability or a
very crafty owner. Numerous media articles carried quotes from mathematicians, statis-
ticians and biologists, who came up with alternative explanations for Paul’s success: the
probability of eight consecutive correct guesses is higher than it appears; the octopus may
have been drawn to the German flag despite its colour-blindness; traces of mussel may have
been left on the boxes (Crossland 2011). These are attempts to get to the ‘truth’ behind the
performance, to reject the clairvoyant hypothesis, but they do not challenge the integrity of
Paul himself.
Ultimately, Paul produced sensational publicity for the Sea Life chain of aquaria which,
despite emphasising their conservational activities, are nonetheless primarily attractions,
owned by Merlin Entertainments, the world’s second-largest operator of amusement parks.
 Celebrity Studies 121

As evidence of Marshall’s claim about the interchangeability of the celebrity sign, it is not
surprising that his aquarium unveiled a successor soon after Paul’s death – Kleine Paul
(Sea Life 2011), allegedly a nephew, who was lined up along with rival octopuses at all
of the chain’s eight German aquaria to predict results of the 2011 Women’s World Cup
in Germany the following summer. Alas, Kleine Paul was a mere shadow of his predeces-
sor, the winner being Ophira from Berlin, who still only managed four out of six correct
selections.7
It could be argued that Paul is not the best example of an anthropomorphised animal
celebrity since the qualities attributed to him are more spiritual than human. Nevertheless
clairvoyance itself is a fundamentally human activity and the animals involved are sim-
ply performing according to their owners’ wishes. What distinguishes the animals in this
category from the others, then, may be the attribution of some kind of ability.
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 22:07 10 January 2015

Knut
Towards the end of 2006, Tosca, a polar bear at Berlin Zoo, gave birth to twin cubs and
then abandoned them on a rock in their enclosure. Four days after being lifted off the rock
with a large fishing net, one twin died, but the other, Knut, became the first polar bear to
survive infancy at the zoo in over 30 years. In order to achieve this feat it was necessary
for one of the zoo keepers, Thomas Dörflein, to act as primary caregiver, sleep alongside
the cub and feed him at regular intervals.
It was deemed inappropriate to exhibit Knut to the public in the first three months
of his life, and news interest was minimal until mid-February, when graffiti appeared in
Potsdamer Platz during the Berlin Film Festival reading ‘Wer ist Knut?’ (‘Who is Knut?’)
(Balzer 2007).8 Within days the local media had picked up the story and were relating
his birthweight and the fact that he already had a full set of milk teeth (Berliner Zeitung
2007). The same paper later ran a feature article announcing him as the zoo’s new publicity
darling (‘der neue Publikumsliebling im Zoo’) who had taken the attention away from the
pandas (Treichel and Langenkamp 2007).
As national interest grew, and Knut prepared for his public debut, a piece of sensation-
alist reporting helped to turn him into a truly global phenomenon. In mid-March German
tabloid Bild carried the headline ‘Wird süßer Knut totgespritzt?’ (‘Will sweet Knut be killed
by lethal injection?’), quoting animal activist Frank Albrecht as saying that the bear should
be killed rather than raised unnaturally by humans. The story prompted a worldwide outcry,
with schoolchildren protesting outside the gates of the zoo and internet calls for Albrecht
himself to be exterminated (Connolly 2007).
As it turns out, Albrecht had spoken to Bild on the topic, albeit about six weeks previ-
ously, claiming that Berlin Zoo’s decision to hand-rear Knut actually contravened German
law. He knew this because he had taken out an injunction against Leipzig Zoo for admin-
istering a lethal injection to a baby sloth abandoned in similar circumstances by its mother
(ABC1 2007). Far from wishing Knut dead, he simply wanted to point out the inconsis-
tency. Either way, it unleashed an unstoppable flood of media attention on the bear – and
the zoo.
By the end of 2007, Knut had attracted record crowds to Berlin Zoo (400,000 in August
alone), and was still making headlines. Many later stories had something Barnumesque
about them: ‘hundreds of e-mails’ had been sent following media reports that Knut had
injured his paw slipping from a rock, only for Thomas Dörflein to announce to the press
that he was simply playing up to attract attention (Crossland 2007). Several attempts to
 122 D.C. Giles

elicit interest in female bears were unsuccessful, with one zoologist branding Knut a
‘psychopath’ who ‘will never mate’ due to his human upbringing (Paterson 2008).
Nevertheless, the Knut industry rolled on, with huge numbers of fluffy pluschbären
(toy bears), games, figurines and even Knut-shaped marshmallows sold to zoo visitors
each year; in 2007 alone the licensing income from Knut merchandising was estimated
at C750,000 (Spiegel Online International 2008a). Songs about the bear were released,
blogs launched and even a weekly online magazine (knutisweekly.com), which continues to
carry features about zoo animals more generally, while citing Knut as ‘inspiration’.
Knut’s four-year stint in the limelight came to an unhappy end during March 2011,
when he fell from a rock in his enclosure and drowned. Candles, cards and flowers were
left at the zoo by a ‘steady stream of visitors’ (Moore 2011), and electronic tributes were
left on hundreds of websites. Footage of Knut’s final moments is contained in dozens of
amateur videos uploaded to YouTube, showing him disappearing into the water and not re-
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 22:07 10 January 2015

emerging. Speculation as to the cause of death meant the story ran for several weeks, as an
initial post-mortem suggested encephalitis and a later examination indicated that epilepsy
was the most likely cause. The latter also ruled out the possibility that his behaviour might
have resulted from the stress of sharing an enclosure with three females, as both fans and
wildlife experts had argued (Jacobs 2011).
The causes of Knut’s celebrity are multiple and intertwined. At the local level, there
are conspicuous traces of nationalism and regionalism, which were discussed in an inter-
esting early article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung (Jauer 2007). The author suggested that
Knut was the ideal symbol for Berlin, comparing his survival to that of the city after its
wartime and post-war trauma. He also hinted that the zoo’s decision to hand-rear Knut was
based partly on Berliners’ distrust of advice emanating from the ‘provinces’ (it was ini-
tially Aachen Zoo’s director who suggested that nature should have been left to determine
Knut’s fate).9 Ultimately, Jauer argued, Knut may not be a proper bear, but he is nonethe-
less a true Berliner10 − in other words, his symbolic value is greater than his zoological
(or ethical, depending on one’s position). In the early Knut coverage the local media were
quite unreserved about the symbolic significance of raising an exotic bear in the city, since
a bear is part of the city’s coat of arms (Treichel and Langenkamp 2007). Once Knut had
gone global, he was frequently referred to as ‘unser bär’ (our bear) by German media and
fans alike.
For Knut’s global audience, his German origin was largely an irrelevance compared
with his cuteness. While Paul the octopus has at least the attribution of predictive ability,
Knut became celebrated simply for being attractive, as testified by the millions of images
circulating through international media. As with Paul, video footage played a crucial role in
Knut’s rise to fame, particularly during the early months of his life, with film of the infant
Knut being fed, brushed and having his tummy tickled by Thomas Dörflein, his ‘Papi’.11
Knut’s adorability derives largely from those early videos, which have formed the
enduring image of the bear, evident in most merchandising – the cute fluffy toy bears,
T-shirts and DVD covers – featuring the infant Knut. No matter how many visitors poured
through the Berlin Zoo turnstiles in subsequent years, it is this image that defines his
celebrity. This was brought out in a feature in British daily The Independent (Paterson
2008), which contrasted the cuddly ‘snow white’ cub depicted in the publicity posters out-
side the zoo with the ‘filthy brownish grey colour’ bear inside, bigger than a human at full
stretch, performing for onlookers in a manner that was ‘more circus than zoo’.
The discrepancy between iconic image and bestial reality failed to derail the Knut phe-
nomenon, which continued to grow despite the framing of so many Knut-related media
stories as debates over the ethical treatment of animals (albeit in the service, in many cases,
 Celebrity Studies 123

of bashing ‘activists’). Is it possible to find Knut adorable while, at the same time, wishing
he had been allowed to die at the hands of his natural mother rather than being raised by a
human?
The answer is that Knut’s adorability – and ultimately his global fame – is intrinsi-
cally linked to his relationship with Dörflein, who is a prominent figure in most of the
early videos. The endearment ‘Papi’, widely reproduced by fans in their online posts and
blogs, reflects the adult-human child interaction witnessed in the videos, which, in addi-
tion to essential care, depict Knut clinging on to Dörflein’s trouser leg, playing games
and even being gently kicked out of the way as the keeper tidies up the enclosure. After
Dörflein’s untimely death (at the age of 44) many fans claimed that Knut was ‘heartbro-
ken’, even though the pair had been separated a year previously amid fears for the keeper’s
safety. Indeed, so prominent a figure was Dörflein in the Knut phenomenon, his death
brought hundreds of mourners to his grave within the first few days of his burial, and over
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 22:07 10 January 2015

11,000 postings on Berlin Zoo’s tribute website (Spiegel Online International 2008b).
Ultimately, it could be argued that Knut’s celebrity was confounded by the fact that
he was, after all, a bear. Discursively constituted as a human child, he became what the
zoologists and activists had warned of at the start: a cute bundle of fun that grew into a
(seemingly) troubled adult. Once his ursine nature became apparent, he was neither able
to continue in his quasi-human role, nor fulfil the expectations of his species. In many
respects he faced the same dilemma as a human child star, who finds their intrinsic appeal
fading as adulthood beckons.

Heidi
Towards the end of 2010, Leipzig Zoo unveiled plans for a new attraction, an enclosed
tropical environment called Gondwanaland, to open the following summer, and German
tabloid Bild printed pictures of some of the featured animals. Among them was an opossum
named Heidi whose eyes are misaligned, giving her a ‘cross-eyed’ appearance: according
to the zoo, this could be due to either poor diet in infancy or fatty deposits (Zoo Leipzig
2011). Bild were in no doubt that they had unearthed a new celebrity: ‘das schielende
Opossum’ (‘the squinting opossum’) was worth the high entrance price alone (Gebauer
2010).
Like Knut, Heidi generated extensive media coverage long before her first public
appearance. Though the attraction was not due to open until 1 July 2011 and the zoo had
no plans to exhibit her in advance, German television carried sufficient footage during the
pre-Christmas period for a fan following to evolve, largely through Facebook. By early
January she had become a bona fide national celebrity: a song had been written and per-
formed by three young girls from the Harz mountains, and then broadcast on YouTube,
attracting 6000 clicks in its first three days (opening lines: ‘Die Heidi ist so süß/wie schön,
dass es sie gibt’12 ), and toy manufacturer Kösen were preparing a ‘Heidi’ range of stuffed
opossums (Warner 2011). Within a few days the Heidi story had reached a global audience,
with news reports and footage in many countries (Sinmaz 2011).
At this point, the Heidi story diverges somewhat from that of Knut. News reportage
dried up, although she continued to recruit fans worldwide on Facebook. Hidden away
backstage at Leipzig Zoo, and lacking a Dörflein-like human stooge to star alongside (not
to mention the developmental curiosity that fuelled the continuous Knut coverage), it was
difficult to generate anything more newsworthy apart from than the fact that Heidi contin-
ued to be süß. There was nothing left but to play the clairvoyance card: in late February
the zoo hooked up with US late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, whose ABC show broadcast
 124 D.C. Giles

nightly links from her enclosure as Heidi selected winners from various categories in the
forthcoming Oscars ceremony. Despite performing quite well in this task, it was not enough
to keep media interest going.
When Gondwanaland finally opened in July and Heidi made her shy debut, media atten-
tion seemed to be directed more to the attraction as a whole, with mention of Heidi often
confined to a mere endpiece (for example, Heinz 2011). Nevertheless, reports still referred
to her as a ‘medienstar’, the zoo’s own website (www.zoo-leipzig.de) continues to advertise
her on their homepage as ‘sehr bekannt’ (‘very well-known’), and by late August 2011 her
German Facebook site had over 325,000 fans. It could be argued that this is the outcome the
zoo had always desired: not allowing her to outshine the rest of Gondwanaland, enabling
her to function as a promotional trailer.
Within weeks of the opening, however, Heidi had contracted arthritis and, virtu-
ally unable to move, the zoo decided to ‘put her to sleep’ (Spiegel Online 2011).13 A
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 22:07 10 January 2015

life snatched cruelly away? Hardly: according to the National Opossum Society (www.
opossum.org), such animals have unusually short life expectancies, typically between two
and four years.

Conclusions
The three case studies above illustrate some of the various elements involved in con-
structing animals as celebrities. I selected these largely because they had all generated
considerable coverage in the year prior to writing, were all based in Germany and had
attained national fame before reaching a global audience.14 They were also intended to
reflect the first three categories of the current paper’s taxonomy: Paul for his anthro-
pomorphic ability; Knut as typical zoo-based promotional tool; and Heidi as a case of
freakery.
While the cases map broadly on to the taxonomic categories, there are further common
factors that link them. Most obviously, all three have succeeded in generating considerable
publicity, and perhaps revenue (particularly Knut), for the institutions that house them.
Even after death, Paul and Knut figure heavily in promotional material for Sea Life and
Berlin Zoo, tied to existing animals (bears that lived alongside Knut, related octopuses,
other clairvoyant octopuses). Given Turner’s (2010b, p. 14) call for celebrity to be ‘under-
stood and studied as an industry’, all three cases would seem to be shining examples of
Marshall’s (1997) ‘celebrity-commodity’, particularly with regard to the operation of their
publicity machinery.
‘If celebrity is a commodity,’ writes Turner (2010b, p. 16), ‘then I want to know more
about the industries that produce that commodity.’ Another purpose of the three case stud-
ies outlined here was to demonstrate, in some detail, the way that celebrities are created
over time by national and international media. Paul, Knut and Heidi were not, to use
Turner’s (2010a) term, ‘picked up’ by media, nor were they entirely ‘grown’ as media
celebrities in themselves, although Bild had an important part to play in elevating Knut to
his subsequent high profile and were highly instrumental in bringing Heidi to a national
audience. Their stories allow us to witness the intertwining of press interest, PR machina-
tions and fan activity, and the intervention of other media sources (film-makers, TV shows,
websites) that combine to propagate the mythology and maintain celebrity status for the
desired object.
Another factor that unifies the three case studies is that, each time, the animal’s success
derives largely from the meanings (and, in many cases, desires) projected on to it by (ini-
tially) the media and (ultimately) the public. For Paul, this process is explicit: whether his
 Celebrity Studies 125

‘predictions’ were the work of a superhuman intelligence, or divine foresight, the ability is
an attribution by various interested parties and entertained by media and audiences in the
context of play. For Knut and Heidi, the projection is one of childishness, with considerable
affective power for young audiences.
It is the projected aspect of animal celebrity that reveals the workings of celebrity more
generally. Removing the real person from the centre of the sign construction allows us to
reduce celebrity to its basest elements. Animals are the ultimate examples of what Chris
Rojek has termed the ‘celetoid’ – ‘a media-generated, compressed, concentrated form of
attributed celebrity’ (Rojek 2001, p. 18, my italics). Knut and the rest literally do nothing
but act as a conduit for our fantasies and desires, whether of divination or of doting sib-
linghood; the purity and innocence of living beings without human sin, artifice or careerist
motives.
Celetoids, it is assumed (though never stated explicitly), are human beings. However,
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 22:07 10 January 2015

Rojek also suggested that some fictional creations, which he labels ‘celeactors’, can obtain
a brief celebrity when figures emerge as archetypes in the media because they seem to
encapsulate a contemporary social phenomenon. These figures are not human beings as
such; they require the attribution of human characteristics by their audience in order for
them to be treated as representative human figures. I would argue that the same psychoso-
cial process turns animals into celebrities once the conditions have been set up under which
celebrity can take place (media coverage, fan sites and circulation of celebrity discourse
more generally).
A further definition of celebrity that allows for non-human actors to step into the role
is supplied by the very first editorial in Celebrity Studies, where Holmes and Redmond
(2010, p. 4), in citing Turner et al. (2000), define celebrity as ‘constituted discursively by
the way in which the individual is represented’. This is, in effect, a Foucauldian definition
in the sense that celebrity as an object is formed ‘systematically’ by discursive ‘practices’
(Foucault 1972). One need only consult the many media sources cited in the above case
studies to see that Paul, Knut and Heidi are described throughout their coverage in terms
usually reserved for Hollywood actors: ‘medienstar’ (Grix 2010), ‘global celebrity’ (Hall
2010), and ‘internet star’ (Batty 2010) are just three used to describe Paul.
Perhaps we can understand animal celebrities best by returning to an earlier study of
fame and celebrity. Leo Braudy (1986, p. 16) talks about the ‘gestures of fame’ echoing
through history, giving each new generation, and each new media form, the impression that
it is happening for the first time. Maybe we do not have to radically rethink our ‘humanised’
theories of celebrity. Maybe the animals scrutinised in this paper are simply being cloaked
in the language and gestures of celebrity for analogous purposes. To describe Knut, or any
other non-human object, as a ‘celebrity’ is mere wordplay.
The problem with such an argument is that it assumes that there is still something tan-
gible, and intrinsically human, behind the concept of celebrity, that effectively essentialises
the phenomenon. If the historical origins of its imagery define the essence of celebrity, this
would mean that the Hollywood star remains the default celebrity, and all televisual and
other forms are simply copyists. But, as Bennett and Holmes (2010) have argued, wran-
gling over the application of categories such as ‘star’ and ‘celebrity’ results from seeing
celebrity as a trait of an individual rather than a cultural process. So while a historical read-
ing of celebrity is interesting for studying how media recycle images and signifiers, it is
the application of those images and signifiers to new objects of desire that constitutes the
process of celebrity, celebrification, or celebritisation (to cite a few variations on the same
theme).
 126 D.C. Giles

As a final point, it is interesting to note that the three case studies featured in this paper
concern animals that lived most of their lives in captivity. In the age of reality TV, celebrities
are often confined to restricted environments – the jungle and the Big Brother house, to
mention two – and even when allowed to roam freely, the metaphor of the ‘goldfish bowl’
is frequently applied to the celebrity experience (Giles 2000). In cinema (and, by extension,
television), the close-up is said to ‘capture’ the star, allowing us to believe we have access
to their unique personhood, a process that is ‘probably central to the star phenomenon’
(Dyer 1979, p. 17). Sunbathing celebrities are likewise ‘captured’ by the telephoto lens of
the paparazzo, again making us believe we have caught a glimpse of their true, private self
(Lai 2006). What, then, could be a more perfect symbol of celebrity than the caged animal?

Notes
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 22:07 10 January 2015

1. Rojek does, however, leave open the possibility of the object of desire being non-human, simply
‘animate’.
2. Pickles came to a decidedly inglorious end the following year, throttled by his own lead while
climbing a tree in pursuit of a cat (Jackson 2006).
3. Pre-2010 Paul media archives are somewhat sketchy. While the official Sea Life line is that
he made numerous correct predictions of matches in the 2008 European Championship finals,
online coverage from that period is barren. The earliest reports I have managed to unearth are
those from late June 2010 relating to his backing of Germany in the forthcoming match against
England.
4. The Life and Times of Paul the Psychic Octopus, slated for release in summer 2012, is the result
of a collaboration between the Denver-based Cinema Vertige and Merlin Entertainments (the
owners of the Sea Life chain). The film is to be directed by Alexandre Phillipe (The People vs.
George Lucas), and the trailer promises high comedy, with tongue-in-cheek contributions from
various mathematicians, one of whom delivers the line ‘The possibility is that this is beyond
chance’.
5. Bartsch is described by Grix (2010) as a ‘zootierfängerin’, literally a ‘capturer of zoo animals’.
6. When Paul’s story first broke worldwide, the head of animal care at Weymouth’s Sea Life
Centre was reported as saying that Paul was sold to Oberhausen four years previously (Goater
2010). However, most experts cited in the course of Paul’s media coverage have put a limit of
two years on the average life expectancy of octopuses.
7. They were all beaten by an elephant called Nelly from Hodenhagen, who correctly predicted
all six fixtures involving the host nation (ARD 2011).
8. As yet, no one has claimed responsibility for the graffiti, leaving open any number of
Barnumesque possibilities.
9. The Süddeutsche Zeitung is based in Bavaria, in the south of Germany.
10. ‘Knut wird darum vielleicht kein richtiger Bär werden, aber jedenfalls ein Berliner’ (Knut may
not after all be a real bear, but he is undoubtedly a Berliner).
11. See (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBLizhD_0R4) for a typical example.
12. ‘Heidi is so sweet/how nice that she is with us [lit: is there]’.
13. ‘Teilte der Zoo Leipzig mit, dass Heidi eingeschläfert werden musste.’
14. The German connection would seem to be largely coincidental, except that Germany does have
a very high number of zoos (over 400) and Berlin is officially the world’s largest, so animals
would be expected to have a higher media profile than in other countries. Selecting all three
cases from the same country made comparison easier since the animals’ celebrity originated
from coverage in the same national media.

References
ABC1, 2007. Look out, Knut, it’s a zoo out there! ABC1 Mediawatch, 4 April. Available from: http://
www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1887892.htm [Accessed 28 July 2011].
ARD, 2011. Ein elephant ist die neue Paul. Available from: http://www.sportschau.de/sp/fifawm2011/
news201107/11/nelly_orakel.jsp [Accessed 25 July 2011].
 Celebrity Studies 127

BBC, 2004. Shrek the sheep faces his shearers. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/
asia-pacific/3639315.stm [Accessed 22 July 2011].
Balzer, J., 2007. Wer ist eigentlich dieser Knut? Berliner Zeitung. Available from: http://www.
berlinonline.de/berliner-zeitung/archiv/.bin/dump.fcgi/2007/0210/berlinale/0150/index.html
[Accessed 4 August 2011].
Batty, D., 2010. Paul the ‘psychic’ octopus wins again in World Cup final. The Guardian. Available
from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jul/12/paul-psychic-octopus-wins-world-cup
[Accessed 25 July 2011].
Bennett, J. and Holmes, S., 2010. The ‘place’ of television in celebrity studies. Celebrity studies,
1 (1), 65–80.
Berliner Zeitung, 2007. Ein fläschschen für Knut. Available from: http://www.berlinonline.de/
berliner-zeitung/archiv/.bin/dump.fcgi/2007/0213/berlin/0118/index.html [Accessed 4 August
2011].
Boorstin, D.J., 1962. The image: a guide to pseudo-events in America. New York: Harper and Row.
Branigan, T., Connolly, K., and Jones, S., 2010. Paul the octopus is dead – but conspiracy theories are
thriving. The Guardian. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/oct/26/paul-
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 22:07 10 January 2015

octopus-dead-psychic-world [Accessed 25 July 2011].

Braudy, L., 1986. The frenzy of renown: fame and its history. New York: Oxford University Press.
Connolly, K., 2007. Rejected at birth, Knut becomes Berlin Zoo’s bear essential. The Guardian, 23
March. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/24/animalwelfare.germany
[Accessed 28 July 2011].
Crossland, D., 2007. Knut feigning sore paw to get attention. Spiegel International Online. Available
from: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,505148,00.html [Accessed 28 July
2011].
Crossland, D., 2011. Rest in peace, Paul the octopus. Spiegel International Online. Available from:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,725399,00.html [Accessed 25 July 2011].
Dyer, R., 1979. Stars. London: British Film Institute.
Dyer, R., 1986. Heavenly bodies: film stars and society. London: British Film Institute.
Foucault, M., 1972. The archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock.
Gamson, J., 1994. Claims to fame: Celebrity in contemporary America. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Gebauer, P., 2010. Wird das da Leipzigs neuer Zoo-liebling? Bild. Available from: http://www.bild.
de/regional/leipzig/leipzig-regional/wird-es-leipzigs-neuer-zoo-liebling-15015988.bild.html
[Accessed 19 August 2011].
Giles, D.C., 2000. Illusions of immortality: a psychology of fame and celebrity. Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Goater, D., 2010. Weymouth’s ‘psychic’ World Cup octopus is squids in. Dorset Echo.
Available from: http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/8258258.Weymouth_s__psychic__World_
Cup_octopus_is_squids_in/ [Accessed 26 July 2011].
Grix, S., 2010. Ich bin die mutter vom WM-orakel Paul. Bild. Available from: http://www.bild.
de/news/2010/news/ich-bin-die-mutter-vom-wm-orakel-paul-13258758.bild.html [Accessed 26
July 2011].
Hall, A., 2010. Iranian president Ahmadinejad denounces superstitious West over Paul the octopus.
Daily Mail. Available from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298088/Iran-president-
Ahmadinejad-denounces-Paul-Psychic-Octopus.html [Accessed 26 July 2011].
Heinz, M., 2011. Bananen pfluckt der Affe selbst. Zeit Online. Available from: http://www.zeit.de/
reisen/2011-06/leipzig-zoo-tiere [Accessed 23 August 2011].
Holmes, S. and Redmond, S., 2010. Editorial: A journal in celebrity studies. Celebrity Studies, 1 (1),
1–10.
Jackson, J., 2006. A twist in the tale. The Observer. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
football/2006/apr/23/newsstory.sport1 [Accessed 19 July 2011].
Jacobs, T., 2011. Diagnose: Epileptischer anfall. Der Tagesspiegel. Available from: http://www.
tagesspiegel.de/berlin/diagnose-epileptischer-anfall/3979024.html [Accessed 5 August 2011].
Jauer, W., 2007. Ein typischer Berliner bär. Süddeutsche Zeitung, 19 March. http://www.
sueddeutsche.de/panorama/knut-ein-typischer-berliner-baer-1.860529 [Accessed 28 July].
la Repubblica, 2010. Paolo è italiano: Arriva dall’Elba. Available from: http://www.repubblica.
it/speciali/mondiali/sudafrica2010/2010/07/11/news/polpo_paul_italiano-5511488/ [Accessed
26 July 2011].
 128 D.C. Giles

Lai, A., 2006. Glitter and grain: aura and authenticity in the celebrity photographs of Juergen Teller.
In: S. Holmes and S. Redmond, eds. Framing celebrity: New directions in celebrity culture.
Abingdon: Routledge, 215–230.
Marshall, P.D., 1997. Celebrity and power: fame in contemporary culture. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Monaco, J., ed., 1978. Celebrity: the media as image makers. New York: Delta.
Moore, T., 2011. Did negligence kill the polar bear? Time. Available from: http://www.time.com/
time/world/article/0,8599,2060743,00.html [Accessed 29 July 2011].
Mucientes, E., 2010. ¡Cuidado con abusar de Paul! El Mundo. Available from: http://www.elmundo.
es/mundial/2010/2010/07/08/otromundial/1278570683.html [Accessed 26 July 2011].
Paterson, T., 2008. Knut is a psychopath and will never mate, say experts. The Independent.
Available from: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/knut-is-a-psychopath-and-
will-never-mate-say-experts-772865.html [Accessed 29 July 2011].
Pycior, H., 2005. The making of the ‘First Dog’: President Warren G. Harding and Laddie Boy.
Society & animals, 13, 109–138.
Rojek, C., 2001. Celebrity. London: Reaktion.
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 22:07 10 January 2015

Schramm, H. and Hartmann, T., 2008. The PSI-Process Scales: A new measure to assess the intensity
and breadth of parasocial processes. Communications: the european journal of communication
research, 33, 385–401.
Sea Life, 2011. Wer kann Paul? Deutschlands erster Orakelcontest. Available from: http://www.
visitsealife.com/Oberhausen/aktuelles/orakel-contest-oberhausen/ [Accessed 25 July 2011].
Silverman, S.M., 2001. Movie mutts: hollywood goes to the dogs. New York: Harry N. Abrams.
Sinmaz, E., 2011. Heidi the cross-eyed opossum becomes Facebook hit. The Guardian. Avail-
able from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/13/heidi-cross-eyed-opossum-facebook
[Accessed 19 August 2011].
Spiegel Online, 2011. Heidi, das Opossum, ist tot. Available from: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/
schielender-zoo-star-heidi-das-opossum-ist-tot-a-788805.html [Accessed 17 May 2012]
Spiegel Online International, 2008a. Knut earned Berlin Zoo C5 million last year. Available from:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,536616,00.html [Accessed 4 August 2011].
Spiegel Online International, 2008b. Dörflein’s grave becomes pilgrimage site. Available from: http://
www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,583860,00.html [Accessed 5 August 2011].
Tolson, A., 2001. ‘Being yourself ’: the pursuit of authentic celebrity. Discourse studies, 3 (4),
443–457.
Treichel, T. and Langenkamp, C., 2007. Hier kommt Knut. Berliner Zeitung. Available from: http://
www.berlinonline.de/berliner-zeitung/archiv/.bin/dump.fcgi/2007/0222/berlin/0047/index.html
[Accessed 28 July 2011].
Turner, G., 2004. Understanding celebrity. London: Sage.
Turner, G., 2010a. Ordinary people and the media: the demotic turn. London: Sage.
Turner, G., 2010b. Approaching celebrity studies. Celebrity studies, 1 (1), 11–20.
Turner, G., Bonner, F., and Marshall, P.D., 2000. Fame games: the production of celebrity in
Australia. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Warner, M.B., 2011. Heidi the cross-eyed opossum charms Germany. Spiegel Online International.
Available from: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,738309,00.html [Accessed
19 August 2011].
Yuan, D.D., 1996. The celebrity freak: Michael Jackson’s ‘grotesque glory’. In: R.G. Thomson, ed.
Freakery: Cultural spectacles of the extraordinary body. New York: New York University Press,
368–384.
Zoo Leipzig, 2011. Einige Fakten zum Opossum Heidi. Available from: http://www.zoo-leipzig.de/
index.php?strg=9_13_56_270&baseID=463 [Accessed 19 August 2011].