The term `plastic surgery` is an interesting one. It can be taken a couple of different ways and, indeed, probably in some sort of slippery semantic sense both ideas are implied. Referred to here is both the sense of plastic as an actual material produced by the chemical industry, but also plastic in the colloquial sense as fake, artificial or even phony.

Plastic, the chemically derived product, certainly is used often enough for such surgeries. Defining the surgery in this way is though a bit dubious, as it is not the ideal material. Skin grafts taken from other parts of the body are the preferred option when possible. So this name is a little misleading.

And, as to plastic in the aesthetic or ethical sense, the truth is that most reconstructive surgery is not even cosmetic. But there is something about the association of such surgery to the celebrities trying to hang onto their glamour and appeal that leads so many of us to thoughtlessly let the description roll glibly off the tongue. Perhaps it is something like this subtle disapproval of the celebrities that use it that explains the widespread fascination with examples of celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong.

So intriguing is the picture of the powerful who have fallen; the wealthy seemingly unable to find or afford a competent surgeon; the gorgeous who paid the price for their deal with the devil's scalpel. It's almost as though we enjoy some vindication for the years of feeling our inferiority compared to their glamour and charisma. When the tables are suddenly turned those whose beauty once made us look like geeks now has them looking like frogs. A reverse fairy tale, princes and princesses into frogs. There almost seems to be something redeeming in it for us.

And, indeed, it could be put another way, slightly more stylized. For, at the point of such distressing surgical outcomes, one might well intone that those who live by beauty shall die by beauty. Metaphorically speaking, you understand! This may well be the ultimate poetic justice.

Consider though an even bleaker possibility: something more sinister yet may lie at the heart of it all. This prospect came to my attention recently in recalling that popular FX television show, Nip/Tuck. If you don't know it, you should. It was the story of a pair of superstar plastic surgeons, serving the rich, famous and beautiful. A fascinating fact though is that the pilot episode was not actually focused on the rich, famous or beautiful. Rather its story revolved around a mercy surgery to relieve a man with a horribly disfigured face.

There was though a troubling twist at the end of the episode. Only once the procedure was complete did the surgeons discover that their patient was in fact a pedophile. Unwittingly, with all the best of intentions, they had eliminated the one obstacle which had previously stood in the way of his ability to lure innocent children into his devices. A dark story line it was indeed. And, wouldn't you agree, an intriguing choice for the inaugural episode of a series primarily focused on the rich, famous and beautiful clientele.

I find myself wondering if that story captures some primordial suspicion about plastic surgery: do we suspect, even if only unconsciously, that such surgery is an exercise in duplicity? Is something that is true, yet darker, being concealed? Even possibly something sinister? It may well be that the fascination with celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong does tap into just these kind of primordial suspicions. The dark intuition that a deep ugliness is being concealed. That the princess or prince has always been a frog and only now we have the opportunity to see the truth. And someone is trying to hide the truth.

Am I making too much out of this? Possibly, but I think it's something worth reflecting upon. That the fascination with celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong says something about the very concept of celebrity and about us.