论文部分内容阅读
The deaths of musicians and actors may not be what future generations chiefly remember about 2016 but they did have an extraordinary impact at the time. Tens of millions of people were strangely and strongly moved by the deaths of David Bowie， Prince， Leonard Cohen， George Michael and Star Wars actor Carrie Fisher.1 These artists were mourned all across the peaceful parts of the world by strangers who felt an intimate connection with the dead； who felt that the artist had been “killing me softly with his song”， and that his voice was truer and clearer than their own when it came to expressing dreams and hopes.2 Something is going on here， which can’t be dismissed as vacuous sentimentality.3
There may not， in fact， have been an unusual number of celebrity deaths last year， but they seem to have been much more salient4 than before. Part of this must be the result of the growing reach and responsiveness5 of digital media. Technology makes it possible to observe and react to a distant readership almost as accurately and immediately as an actor can respond to their audience in a theatre.6 Sudden emotional impulses are amplified with astonishing speed across the internet just as they can be in a crowd.7 Each apparently solitary8 smartphone user is really sharing other people’s emotion as well as their own.
It’s not just emotions that are shared in this way. It’s memories as well. The generations of middle-aged people along with all their children and grandchildren have experienced a kind of collectivisation9 of childhood. This was a historic shift. Before the mass media， childhood memories were shared among very small groups， and anchored to particular places.10 But for the last 60 years， children in the west， and increasingly elsewhere， have grown up in front of televisions， and many of the most vivid characters of their childhood and adolescence were actors or singers.
The entertainment industry has largely replaced religious ritual in many lives， and has itself grown more ritualised， and even religious， in the process.11 The success of the Star Wars franchise12 shows how astonishingly profitable the development can be. It is still true today that dementia sufferers can be roused from their nightmares by carols and perhaps hymns remembered from their childhood when almost everything else has gone， but soon it will be the theme tunes of their childhood’s films that call them back to life that way.13
This huge change has provoked its own backlash.14 Attacks on celebrity culture are now a staple of satirists， and there is a great deal to satirise and mock—but that is true of all money-making forms of religion.15 The relationships that people have with the celebrities who inhabit their imagination express profound longings， and help to fulfil them too.16 Otherwise they would not survive. Some might say that imaginary friends are cultivated at the expense of real ones， and that the contemplation of such things as George Michael’s astonishing acts of private generosity is no substitute for actually giving yourself to a food bank or visiting granny in her nursing home.17 But this is a counsel18 of perfection. We are not made to care equally for everyone—and as a matter of simple fact， we don’t. We aren’t creatures of unlimited compassion， or of entirely rational calculation.19 However， the alternative to rational calculation is not sloppy20 emotion but imagination， which shapes emotion into drama. That is what the lives of celebrities provide， quite as much as their work， and that is part of why they are mourned. They collaborate with their audience to make engrossing worlds that neither party quite comprehends， but both know they need.21 Although this may be one of the things replacing traditional religion， it only works because it does not seem“religious”， moralistic22， or cut off from the world around it. It sanctifies23， or makes vivid and valuable， the ordinary things of life.
If that were all celebrity culture does， it would be far less powerful. Consolation24 and even joy can come from many places in life. What has made these deaths so important to so many people is that they provide an occasion for grief as well. The performance in which the musician and their fans are caught up is ultimately one of tragedy.25 There is loss and grief in every life， and the death of a beloved singer provides a chance to express this sorrow in gestures more powerful than words could be. In the end， they give us their deaths quite as much as their works， and that is why they are so passionately mourned.26
1. David Bowie： 大卫·鲍伊（1947—2016），英国著名摇滚音乐家，上世纪60年代后期出道，是70年代华丽摇滚宗师；Prince： Prince Rogers Nelson，普林斯·罗杰斯·内尔森（1958—2016），艺名王子，美国歌手、词曲作家、音乐家和演员，以全面的音乐才能和华丽的服装及舞台表演著称；Leonard Cohen： 莱昂纳德·科恩（1934—2016），加拿大创作歌手、音乐人，诗人和小说家，荣获第52届格莱美音乐奖终身成就奖，被赞誉为“摇滚乐界的拜伦”；George Michael： 乔治·迈克尔（1963—2016），英国籍希腊裔创作歌手，1980年组建了威猛乐队（Wham），该乐队于1985年作为首个访华的西方流行乐队，引起了极大轰动；Carrie Fisher： 凯丽·费雪（1956年—2016），美国女演员、小说家、剧作家，《星球大战》（Star Wars）中莱娅公主的扮演者。
2. mourn： 悼念，哀悼；killing me softly with his song： 原为美国民谣女歌手Lori Lieberman演唱的一首歌曲。
3. dismiss sth. as： 把某事简单认定为……，草率处理成……；vacuous： 无意义的，空洞的；sentimentality： 感伤，多愁善感。
4. salient： 显著的，突出的。
5. responsiveness： 响应性。
6. 科技使人们能够准确观察远距离的读者并快速做出反应，就像演员在剧场中回应观众一样。readership：（报刊、杂志等的全体）读者。
7. 突如其来的情感冲动以惊人的速度经网上扩散后被放大，就如同在人群中传播一样。impulse： 冲动，一时的念头；amplify：放大；astonishing： 惊人的，令人惊讶的。
8. solitary： 独自的，单独的。
9. collectivization： 集体化。
10. mass media： 大众媒体；anchor： v. 使固定。
11. 对很多人来说，娱乐产业已经基本取代了宗教仪式，并且在此过程中，它本身也变得更加仪式化，甚至宗教化。ritual： 仪式，ritualised为形容词，意为仪式化的。
12. franchise： 特许经营权，此处指电影系列。
13. 当一切记忆都几乎要消失时，儿时记忆中的颂歌或是赞美诗仍然能够将痴呆症患者从噩梦中唤醒，但是很快，能够唤醒他们的就会是童年时看过的电影的主题曲。dementia： 痴呆症；rouse： 唤醒；carol：（圣诞）颂歌；hymn： 圣歌，赞美诗。
14. provoke： 激发，引发；backlash： （尤指对政治或社会变化的）强烈反应。
15. 攻击名人文化成了讽刺作家写作的主要内容，而且可用来嘲讽的东西有很多——但事实上（并非只是宗教化的娱乐产业），所有营利形式的宗教都是这样。staple： 主要内容，基本特点；satirist： 讽刺作家，其动词原形为satirise；mock： 嘲笑。
16. 人们与自己想象中的名人建立某种关系，这体现并满足了人们内心的强烈渴望。inhabit： 居住于。
17. 有人可能会说，假想的朋友是以牺牲真正的朋友为代价的。这就好比你在脑海中思考着乔治·迈克尔私下的驚人善举或其他类似的事，却替代不了你亲自去食物赈济处行善，或去养老院看望老奶奶。cultivate：结交（朋友）；contemplation： 深思；substitute： 替代品；food bank：（美国）食物赈济处。
18. counsel： 劝告，提议。
19. 作为人类这种生物，我们既没有无穷无尽的同情心，也不会百分百理性地去思考问题。compassion： 同情心；calculation： 深思熟虑。
20. sloppy： 情感脆弱的，多愁善感的。
21. 这些名人与观众共同创造了一个个有趣的世界，尽管双方都不能完全理解，但他们却知道这是他们所需要的。collaborate： 合作，协作；engrossing： 引人入胜的，极其有趣的；comprehend： 理解，领会。
22. moralistic： 道德说教的。
23. sanctify： 使神圣化，使圣洁化。
24. consolation： 安慰，慰藉。
25. 这场由音乐人和歌迷共同参与的演出最终成为了悲剧之一。
26. 最后，他们的故去和其作品一样带给我们震撼，这正是他们被人们如此深情缅怀的原因。
There may not， in fact， have been an unusual number of celebrity deaths last year， but they seem to have been much more salient4 than before. Part of this must be the result of the growing reach and responsiveness5 of digital media. Technology makes it possible to observe and react to a distant readership almost as accurately and immediately as an actor can respond to their audience in a theatre.6 Sudden emotional impulses are amplified with astonishing speed across the internet just as they can be in a crowd.7 Each apparently solitary8 smartphone user is really sharing other people’s emotion as well as their own.
It’s not just emotions that are shared in this way. It’s memories as well. The generations of middle-aged people along with all their children and grandchildren have experienced a kind of collectivisation9 of childhood. This was a historic shift. Before the mass media， childhood memories were shared among very small groups， and anchored to particular places.10 But for the last 60 years， children in the west， and increasingly elsewhere， have grown up in front of televisions， and many of the most vivid characters of their childhood and adolescence were actors or singers.
The entertainment industry has largely replaced religious ritual in many lives， and has itself grown more ritualised， and even religious， in the process.11 The success of the Star Wars franchise12 shows how astonishingly profitable the development can be. It is still true today that dementia sufferers can be roused from their nightmares by carols and perhaps hymns remembered from their childhood when almost everything else has gone， but soon it will be the theme tunes of their childhood’s films that call them back to life that way.13
This huge change has provoked its own backlash.14 Attacks on celebrity culture are now a staple of satirists， and there is a great deal to satirise and mock—but that is true of all money-making forms of religion.15 The relationships that people have with the celebrities who inhabit their imagination express profound longings， and help to fulfil them too.16 Otherwise they would not survive. Some might say that imaginary friends are cultivated at the expense of real ones， and that the contemplation of such things as George Michael’s astonishing acts of private generosity is no substitute for actually giving yourself to a food bank or visiting granny in her nursing home.17 But this is a counsel18 of perfection. We are not made to care equally for everyone—and as a matter of simple fact， we don’t. We aren’t creatures of unlimited compassion， or of entirely rational calculation.19 However， the alternative to rational calculation is not sloppy20 emotion but imagination， which shapes emotion into drama. That is what the lives of celebrities provide， quite as much as their work， and that is part of why they are mourned. They collaborate with their audience to make engrossing worlds that neither party quite comprehends， but both know they need.21 Although this may be one of the things replacing traditional religion， it only works because it does not seem“religious”， moralistic22， or cut off from the world around it. It sanctifies23， or makes vivid and valuable， the ordinary things of life.
If that were all celebrity culture does， it would be far less powerful. Consolation24 and even joy can come from many places in life. What has made these deaths so important to so many people is that they provide an occasion for grief as well. The performance in which the musician and their fans are caught up is ultimately one of tragedy.25 There is loss and grief in every life， and the death of a beloved singer provides a chance to express this sorrow in gestures more powerful than words could be. In the end， they give us their deaths quite as much as their works， and that is why they are so passionately mourned.26
1. David Bowie： 大卫·鲍伊（1947—2016），英国著名摇滚音乐家，上世纪60年代后期出道，是70年代华丽摇滚宗师；Prince： Prince Rogers Nelson，普林斯·罗杰斯·内尔森（1958—2016），艺名王子，美国歌手、词曲作家、音乐家和演员，以全面的音乐才能和华丽的服装及舞台表演著称；Leonard Cohen： 莱昂纳德·科恩（1934—2016），加拿大创作歌手、音乐人，诗人和小说家，荣获第52届格莱美音乐奖终身成就奖，被赞誉为“摇滚乐界的拜伦”；George Michael： 乔治·迈克尔（1963—2016），英国籍希腊裔创作歌手，1980年组建了威猛乐队（Wham），该乐队于1985年作为首个访华的西方流行乐队，引起了极大轰动；Carrie Fisher： 凯丽·费雪（1956年—2016），美国女演员、小说家、剧作家，《星球大战》（Star Wars）中莱娅公主的扮演者。
2. mourn： 悼念，哀悼；killing me softly with his song： 原为美国民谣女歌手Lori Lieberman演唱的一首歌曲。
3. dismiss sth. as： 把某事简单认定为……，草率处理成……；vacuous： 无意义的，空洞的；sentimentality： 感伤，多愁善感。
4. salient： 显著的，突出的。
5. responsiveness： 响应性。
6. 科技使人们能够准确观察远距离的读者并快速做出反应，就像演员在剧场中回应观众一样。readership：（报刊、杂志等的全体）读者。
7. 突如其来的情感冲动以惊人的速度经网上扩散后被放大，就如同在人群中传播一样。impulse： 冲动，一时的念头；amplify：放大；astonishing： 惊人的，令人惊讶的。
8. solitary： 独自的，单独的。
9. collectivization： 集体化。
10. mass media： 大众媒体；anchor： v. 使固定。
11. 对很多人来说，娱乐产业已经基本取代了宗教仪式，并且在此过程中，它本身也变得更加仪式化，甚至宗教化。ritual： 仪式，ritualised为形容词，意为仪式化的。
12. franchise： 特许经营权，此处指电影系列。
13. 当一切记忆都几乎要消失时，儿时记忆中的颂歌或是赞美诗仍然能够将痴呆症患者从噩梦中唤醒，但是很快，能够唤醒他们的就会是童年时看过的电影的主题曲。dementia： 痴呆症；rouse： 唤醒；carol：（圣诞）颂歌；hymn： 圣歌，赞美诗。
14. provoke： 激发，引发；backlash： （尤指对政治或社会变化的）强烈反应。
15. 攻击名人文化成了讽刺作家写作的主要内容，而且可用来嘲讽的东西有很多——但事实上（并非只是宗教化的娱乐产业），所有营利形式的宗教都是这样。staple： 主要内容，基本特点；satirist： 讽刺作家，其动词原形为satirise；mock： 嘲笑。
16. 人们与自己想象中的名人建立某种关系，这体现并满足了人们内心的强烈渴望。inhabit： 居住于。
17. 有人可能会说，假想的朋友是以牺牲真正的朋友为代价的。这就好比你在脑海中思考着乔治·迈克尔私下的驚人善举或其他类似的事，却替代不了你亲自去食物赈济处行善，或去养老院看望老奶奶。cultivate：结交（朋友）；contemplation： 深思；substitute： 替代品；food bank：（美国）食物赈济处。
18. counsel： 劝告，提议。
19. 作为人类这种生物，我们既没有无穷无尽的同情心，也不会百分百理性地去思考问题。compassion： 同情心；calculation： 深思熟虑。
20. sloppy： 情感脆弱的，多愁善感的。
21. 这些名人与观众共同创造了一个个有趣的世界，尽管双方都不能完全理解，但他们却知道这是他们所需要的。collaborate： 合作，协作；engrossing： 引人入胜的，极其有趣的；comprehend： 理解，领会。
22. moralistic： 道德说教的。
23. sanctify： 使神圣化，使圣洁化。
24. consolation： 安慰，慰藉。
25. 这场由音乐人和歌迷共同参与的演出最终成为了悲剧之一。
26. 最后，他们的故去和其作品一样带给我们震撼，这正是他们被人们如此深情缅怀的原因。