2008年文登学校春季词汇班精彩文篇推荐

影剧篇
     When Artists Distort History
     第一篇：
     (1) King Richard III was a monster. He poisoned his wife, stole the throne from his two young nephews and ordered them to be smothered in the Tower of London. Richard was a sort of Antichrist the King — “that bottled spider, that pois’nous bunch-back’d toad.?
     (2) Anyway, that was Shakespeare’s version. Shakespeare did what the ______ does: he turned history into a vivid, articulate, organized dream — repeatable nightly. He put the crouch-back? onstage, and sold tickets.
     (3) And who would say that the real Richard known to family and friends was not identical to Shakespeare’s memorably loathsome creation? The actual Richard went dimming into the past and vanished. When all the eye-witnesses are gone, the artist’s imagination begins to conjure?.
     (4) Variations on the King Richard Effect are at work in Oliver Stone’s JFK. Richard Ⅲ was art, but it was propaganda too. Shakespeare took the details of his plot from Tudor historians who wanted to blacken Richard’s name. Several centuries passed before other historians began to write about Richard’s virtues and suggest that he may have been a victim of Tudor malice and what is the cleverest ______ of all: art.
     (5) JFK is a long and powerful discourse about the death of the man Stone keeps calling “the slayed young king.” What are the rules of Stone’s game? Is Stone functioning as commercial entertainer? Propagandist? Documentary filmmaker? Historian? Journalist? Fantasist? Sensationalist? Paranoid conspiracy-monger?? Lone hero crusading? for the truth against a corrupt Establishment? Answer: some of the above.
     (6) The first superficial effect of JFK is to raise angry little scruples? like wounds in the conscience. Wouldn’t it be absurd if a generation of younger Americans, with no memory of 1963, were to form their ideas about John Kennedy’s assassination from Oliver Stone’s report of it? But worse things have happened — including, perhaps, the Warren Commission report?
     (7) Stone’s movie and the Warren report are interestingly symmetrical: the Warren Commission was insensi-tively, one might say pathologically?, unsuspicious, while in every scene of the Stone film conspiracy theories move painfully underfoot like snakes. In a strange way, the two reports balance one another out. It may be ______ to accord Stone’s movie a status coequal with the Warren report. On the other hand, the Warren report has endured through the years as a monolith? of obscure suppression, a smooth tomb of denial. Stone’s movie, for all its wild gesticulations?, at least refreshes the memory and gets a long-cold curiosity and contempt glowing again.
     (8) The irresponsibility of the Warren report somehow makes one less indignant about Stone’s methods and the 500 kitchen sinks that he has heaved into his story. His technique is admirable as storytelling and now and then preposterous as historical inquiry. But why should the American people expect a moviemaker to assume ______ for producing the last word on the Kennedy assassination when the government, historians and news media have all pursued the subject so imperfectly?
     (9) Stone uses a suspect, mixed art form, and JFK raises the familiar ethical and historical problems of docu-drama?. But so what? Artists have always used public events as raw material, have taken history into their imagi-nations and transformed it. The fall of Troy vanished into the Iliad. The Battle of Borodino found its most memorable permanence in Tolstoy’s imagining of it in War and Peace.
     (10) Especially in a world of insatiable electronic storytelling, real history procreates, endlessly conjuring new versions of itself. Public life has become a metaphysical breeder of fictions. Watergate became an almost con-tinuous television miniseries — although it is interesting that the movie of Woodward and Bernstein’s All The President’s Men stayed close to the known facts and, unlike JFK, did not validate dark guess.
     (11) Some public figures have a story magic, and some do not. Richard Nixon possesses an indefinable, em-barrassed dark gleam that somehow fascinates. And John Kennedy, despite everything, still has the bright glam-our that works best of all. Works, that is, except when the subject is his assassination. That may be a matter still too sacred, too raw and unassimilated. The long American passivity about the death in Dallas may be a sort of hypnosis? — or a grief that hardened into a will not to know. Do not let daylight in upon magic.
     (12) Why is Stone’s movie different from any other imaginative treatment of history? Is it because the assassi-nation of John Kennedy was so traumatic?, the bady boomers’ End of Childhood? Or that Americans have santi-fied it as official tragedy, a title that confers immunity from irreligious revisionists who would reopen the grave? Are artists and moviemakers by such logic prohibited from stories about the Holocaust? The Holocaust, of course, is known from the outset to be a satanic plot. For some reason — a native individualism, maybe — many Americans resist dark theories about J.F.K.’s death, and think those retailing them are vending foreign, anarchist goods. Real Americans hate conspiracies as something unclean.
     (13) Perhaps the memory of the assassination is simply too fresh. An outraged movie like Stone’s intrudes upon a semipermanent mourning. Maybe the subject should be embargoed? for some period of time, withheld from artists and entertainers, in the same way the Catholic Church once declined to consider sainthood until the person in question had been dead for 50 years.
     【参考译文】论艺术家扭曲史实
     (1)英王理查三世是个魔鬼。他毒死了自己的妻子，篡夺原属于两个年轻侄儿的王位，还下令在伦敦塔中让他们窒息而死。理查可说是一位撒旦似的国王——“那瓶中的蜘蛛，那阴毒的驼背蟾蜍。”
     (2)至少这是莎士比亚的说法。莎士比亚所做的只是剧作家的本分：把历史转变为鲜明、清晰、条理分明的梦——可以每晚上演。他把这个驼背怪物搬上台，卖票给人看。
     (3) 又有谁敢说在亲朋好友眼中的真正的理查不是这样，和莎翁创造出来的那个令人厌恶得难以忘怀的剧中人物不同？真正的理查，随着历史远去而了无踪迹。所有的目击证人都已不在了，艺术家的想像力就开始施展魔力了。
     (4) 在奥利佛?斯通的《谁杀了肯尼迪》中可以看到这种“理查国王效应”的变奏。《理查三世》是艺术，但也是宣传：莎翁剧情的细节取材自同时期的都铎王朝的历史家，而这些人蓄意丑化理查的形象。要过好几百年才有别的历史家出来记述理查的好处，并且暗示理查可能是都铎王朝恶意宣传的牺牲品，也是最巧妙的阴谋——艺术——的牺牲品。
     (5) 《谁》片是有力的长篇大论，主题是一位人物的死亡——斯通一直称为“遇害的青年国王”的那个人。期通的把戏到底用的是哪种规则？他是扮演提供商业化娱乐的角色？还是宣传家？纪录片电影制作者？历史家？记者？幻想家？危言耸听者？有偏执狂的阴谋论者？独行侠式的英雄，为真理出征，挑战腐败的体制？答案：以上有些是。
     (6) 《谁》片所造成的第一种比较表面化的效果，就是激起观众愤怒的原则问题的小抗议，好像良心上的一道道鞭痕：如果年轻一代的美国人，不复记得1963（肯尼迪遇刺年代），对于肯尼迪遇刺案的观念全凭斯通的报道，这不是太荒谬了吗？可是比这更糟的事也不是没发生过——也许包括华伦委员会报告在内。
     (7)斯通的电影和华伦委员会的报告形成有趣的对称：华伦委员会是反应迟钝，毫无疑心，几乎可以说到了病态的地步：而在斯通电影的每一场戏中，阴谋论像蛇一样在脚下到处窜动。这两种报告很微妙地可以互相平衡。当然，把斯通的片子赋予和华伦报告相同的地位，有点不伦不类。反过来说，华伦报告历经多年至今，像一块巨石般，隐隐压抑着所有不同的说法，好像一座平滑的坟墓，泰然否定一切。斯通的片子虽然从头到尾比手划脚，十分夸张，至少让人重温旧事，让观众心中早已冷却的好奇与轻蔑重新烧了起来。
     (8) 因为华伦报告如此不痛不痒，所以让观众似乎比较能忍受斯通的手法与他搬到电影中的堆积如山的垃圾。从说故事的角度来看，他的手法高明，从调查史实的角度来看则不时显得荒谬。可是政府、历史学家与新闻媒体追查这个主题都无法令人满意，美国人又怎能指望一位电影人来负责对肯尼迪遇刺案下断语？
     (9) 斯通采用的艺术形态是纪录剧情片，这种形态血统不纯正，可靠性也令人怀疑。《谁》片也再度引起关于纪录剧情片的道德性、历史性问题。可是这又怎样？艺术家一向都采用公共事件做原始素材，把历史纳入想象中加以改造。特洛伊城的陷落淹没在《伊利亚特》中。波罗金诺之役能够不朽，永为后人追忆的，不是史实，而是托尔斯泰在《战争与和平》中的想象。
     (10)尤其在电子媒体无止境渴求故事的今日，真实历史不断创造、繁衍出千奇百怪的新版本。公共人物的生活好像成了虚构故事的哺育者。水门事件爆发后，变成几乎不间断的电视迷你剧集——不过有一点颇堪玩味：描写伍华德与伯恩斯坦揭发水门事件的《大阴谋》一片紧守已知的事实，不像《谁》片把阴暗的揣测当真。
     ⑾ 有些公共人物有成为故事的魅力，有些则不然。尼克松有一种不可名状的、好像要掩饰什么的阴暗的光芒，产生一种莫明的吸引力。肯尼迪不论如何还是有他灿烂的光彩，最适合编故事。或许应该说，他遇刺这个故事除外。这个主题可能还是太神圣、太生硬，还没有消化完毕。美国人长久以来对达拉斯市那宗死亡事件一直处于被动、消极状态，这可能是一种催眠——也可能是悲痛化为不愿去了解的意志。神奇的事物不要摊在阳光下。
     ⑿ 斯通的电影和别人利用历史做想象的素材为什么感觉不同？是否因为肯尼迪遇刺造成太深的心理创痛，象征了婴儿潮一代童年的结束？还是因为美国人把它当做国家悲剧供奉起来，使它得以免于被亵渎神明的翻案者从坟墓中挖出来？依此逻辑，艺术家与电影人是否就禁止用纳粹大屠杀来做故事材料？当然，纳粹大屠杀不同，打从一开始很清楚就是撒旦式的情节。许多美国人不知何故——也许天生的个人主义的关系吧——会排斥关于肯尼迪之死的阴谋论，而且认为兜售阴谋论的人是在贩卖外国无政府主义的货物。真正的美国人好像把阴谋看成不洁的事物而讨厌它。
     ⒀ 也许只是因为对刺杀肯尼迪案的记忆还太鲜明了。像斯通这种忿忿不平的电影侵犯到美国人近乎永恒的哀悼。也许这个题材应该禁用一段时间，不准艺术家和娱乐界人士使用，就像天主教从前不愿考虑把死亡未满50年的人封为圣徒一样。

第二篇
     A Dictionary For These Times
     Dear Mr. Martian,
     (1) I understand you may be somewhat confused by the confusing, science-fictive ways you encounter here on our alien planet. I’m hoping this may help your find you way around them.
     (2) Affirmation means ______. (Thus, for example, Magic Johnson approaches his life-threatening disease with optimism and good nature. This means he is “in denial.” An optimist is only a pessimist who hasn’t yet come out. Yes, in short, means no. This is different however, from the fact that no means yes. That is what men say when women don’t say yes to them.)
     (3) Challenge means ______. (A “Physically challenged” person is one who used to be called “disabled” or “handicapped” — to wit, one who has been dealt a bad blow by circumstance. To give him this more friendly sounding title is an attempt to affirm possibility on his behalf — in other words, to be in denial.)
     (4) Cool means hot. (This, of course, you’ve known for a while. Almost anything that people say is “cool” is sure to be “hot.” If something’s “bad,” that means it’s “good.” If it’s “in,” though, that means it’s on the way out. After all, “give in” and “give out” mean the same thing.)
     (5) Diversity means ______. (If someone wants a “diverse” student body, say, that means he wants one in which everyone is more or less like him. This is only logical, because “minorities” tend to be in the majority now. Thus “equal opportunity” usually means “unequal,” since some are more equal — or is it unequal? — than others.
     (6) East means west. (The “Far East” is — naturally — to the west of the “Far West,” and the East Coast is one of the westernmost parts of the Western world. Don’t worry, though: according to a U.S. President, yes means no in the East anyway, while in the more logical West, “a fat chance” means a very thin one.)
     (7) Father means son. (Thus, for example, Bill Wyman’s son is marrying the mother of Bill Wyman’s wife. Bill Wyman will soon be his son’s son-in-law, as well as father of his father-in-law. It’s easy to tell a girl from a boy, however. Boys are the ones with earrings? and long hair; girls are the ones with trousers and short hair. “Mother,” of course, is the worst name you can call someone. That is because mothers are not, in many contexts, objects of worship.)
     (8) Friends means ______. (If someone says, “Can’t we just be friends?,” that usually means you’ve got a po-tential enemy for life. But don’t lose hope: in many parts of the world, your enemy’s enemy is your friend. That is a result of the law whereby two rights make a wrong.)
     (9) Inner city means outer space. (The people who live in the “inner city” are nearly always outsiders, and “insiders” live as far as possible from the heart of things. Likewise, the “inner child,” for most adults, is even more far out.)
     (10) Interests mean ______. (As in the “interests” people list in “personal ads” —“Schoenberg, late Heideg-ger and Hustler” — or in the bodies known as “interest groups.” Of Course, you will already have found that “personal” in any case means “impersonal”; thus a “personal ad” is, in fact, a highly impersonal solicitation? for companionship.)
     (11) Left means right. (In places like the former Soviet Union, the “rightists” are the conservatives, who are most attached to communism — in other words, the people furthest on the left.
     (12) New means old. (Thus a “new idea” — in Hollywood, for example — means an old idea that is not under copyright. Something that happened yesterday, though, is “old news.”)
     (13) Pleasure means ______. (The giving of pleasure is one of the most lucrative businesses around, and not only in the red-light district. Thus people who “play games” for a living sign contracts for $43 million — much more than people who merely work. Those who can sing may get up to $100 million.)
     (14) Ruler means ______. (Anyone who is a member of a royal family is, by law, subject to the nation. Thus the princesses of Britain, say, are employees of the people, used as tourist attractions and given free board and lodging in return for affording the rest of us some entertainment. You may remember how the old kings — like Henry V — used to spy on their subjects; now it’s the subjects who spy on their rulers. Dieu et mon droit.)
     (15) Small means mid-size. (If you are renting a car, you need to remember that “small” is several sizes larger than the smallest size. And in McDonald’s, “a small” order of fries is now a regular-size order, which is differ-ent from the situation in most places, where the “regular” size is very small.)
     (16) War means peace. (Thus the “cold war” was a way of maintaining a delicate peace between two militant superpowers. The “war against drugs” means saying “Just say no” several times and hoping that people under the influence won’t take a no for a yes.)
     (17) Oh, and one more thing. Alien means resident. (As in “I live here because I’m a ‘resident alien.’ “You’ll see lots of “aliens” in the U.S. — they are the people who come from other countries, as opposed to “real Americans,” who are people who came from other countries a little while ago.)
     (18) I hope that all makes sense. I’m sure you will find our world as clear as anything on your planet.
     【参考译文】
     新时代字典
     亲爱的火星人：
     (1)我了解您在我们这个外星人星球上碰到的许多颠三倒四、科幻小说式的情形，可能让您有点困惑。希望以下的说明能帮您克服这些障碍。
     (2)肯定就是否认。（譬如魔术师约翰逊用乐观、随和的态度来对待他患的致命的疾病。这表示他在“否认”。乐观者只是还不肯承认的悲观者。简单讲，说“是”的意思就是“不”。不过这和另一种状况不同：说“不”意思就是“是”。那是男人说的：“在女人不肯对他说“是”的时候。）
     (3) 挑战就是丧失。（一个“身体受挑战”的人就是从前叫做“失能”或“残障”的人——例如曾遭到命运严重打击的人。用现在这个听起来比较友善的名称来称呼他，是为了肯定他的可能性——也就是否认的意思。）
     (4) 冷就是热。（这一点当然您早就知道了。只要是别人说“酷”的东西几乎一定很热门。如果说这个东西很“坏”，那就是说它很“棒”的意思。可是如果说一个东西是“in”[流行]，那就是说它快要out [出局]了。毕竟give in 和give out 的意思是一样的。）
     (5) 多样性就是单一性。（如果有人说他们希望抬收进来的学生有“多样性”，意思是说他要的学生每一个都和他自己是差不多的人。这也很合理，因为“少数”民族现在有占“多数”的倾向。所以“平等机会”通常表示“不平等”的意思，因为有人比别人更平等——或者该说更不平等？
     (6) 东方就是西方。（所谓“远东”当然就是在“远西”的更西方。美国东海岸也是西方世界最“西”化的地方。不过您也不用担心，有一位美国总统就说过，反正在东方“是”就表示“不”。而在比较合乎逻辑的西方，“机会大得很”意思是成功的机会太小了。）
     (7)父就是子。（例如，比尔怀曼的儿子要和比尔怀曼的丈母娘结婚了。比尔怀曼马上就是他儿子的女婿了，他的老丈人则要叫他爸爸。这是有点乱，不过男人女人倒很容易分。戴耳环留长发的就是男人，穿长裤留短发的就是女人。“妈妈”当然是骂人最难听的脏话。这是因为妈妈在许多状况下都是崇拜的对象。）
     (8) 朋友就是敌人。（如果有人说：“我们不能只做朋友吗？”那通常表示你结下了一个一辈子的敌人。可是也别灰心：世界上有许多地方，敌人的敌人就是朋友。这是根据“正正得负”定律导出来的结果。）
     (9) 都市内部就是外太空。（住在“都市内部”的人几乎都是圈外人，而“圈内人”则尽量避开问题的核心。同样的，大部分成年人“内心的小孩”更是超乎想象之外。）
     (10)兴趣就是无聊。（好比您看到“个人广告”上那些人列出来的“兴趣”——“勋伯格、后期海德格尔和《哈骚客》”——或者是所谓 “利益团体”中的“兴趣”。当然，您一定已经了解所谓“个人”反正指的是“非个人”；所以所谓“个人广告”其实是完全不针对个人的征友广告。）
     ⑾ 左就是右。（在前苏联之类的地方，所谓“右派”是保守派，也就是最服膺共产主义的人——所以就是立场最左的人。）
     ⑿ 新就是旧。（所以一个新点子——好比在好莱坞——就是还没有申请版权的旧点子。而昨天才发生的事情就算“旧新闻”了。）
     ⒀ 享乐就是事业。（提供享乐是最赚钱的行业之一，还不只红灯区是如此。所以“玩游戏、打球”谋生的人签约一签就是4300万——比光会工作的人多多了。会唱歌的更可以拿到1亿的合约。）
     ⒁ 统治者就是子民。（凡属于皇室的人士按法律规定就是国家的臣民，所以好比英国的王妃们就是人民聘请的员工，用来吸引观光客，管吃管住，以替人们提供娱乐。您可能还记得从前的国王——像亨利五世——会偷偷刺探他的臣民，现在则是臣民刺探统治者的隐私。天主、吾皇万岁！）
     ⒂ 小号就是中号。（如果您去租车，要记得“小型”比起最小的汽车要大上好几号。而且在麦当劳，一客小薯条现在是中的了。这和大部分的情形相反。一般您要的中号都小得很。
     ⒃ 战争就是和平。（所以“冷战”从前是两个交战的超级大国之间维持脆弱和平的办法。“对毒品宣战”的意思就是把“只要说不”念上几遍，然后希望那些吸毒吸到不分东南西北的人不会把“不”误当为“是”。）
     ⒄ 对了，还有一点。外来人口就是居民。（好比说“我住在这，因为我是‘有居留权的外来人口’”。在美国您可以看到很多“外来人口”，就是从外国来的人，这和“真正的美国人”不一样——真正的美国人是不久前从外国来的。）
     ⒅ 希望您都弄清楚 了。我相信您会觉得我们的世界和您的星球一样的清楚明白。

2008年文登春季词汇班精彩文篇推荐(三)第三篇
     TV Could Nourish Minds and Hearts
     (1) Despite questions of the motivation behind them, the attacks by the President and the Vice President on the moral content of television entertainment have found an echo in the chambers of the American soul. Many who reject the ______ still accept the message. They do not like the moral tone of American TV. In our society only the human family surpasses television in its capacity to communicate values, provide role models, form con-sciences and motivate human behavior. Few educators, church leaders or politicians possess the moral influence of those who create the nation’s entertainment.
     (2) Every good story will not only captivate its viewers but also give them some insight into what it means to be a human being. By so doing, it can help them grow into the deeply centered, sovereignty free, joyously lov-ing human beings God made them to be. Meaning, freedom and love — the supreme human values. And this is the kind of human enrichment the American viewing public has a right to expect from those who make its en-tertainment.
     (3) It is not a question of entertainment or enrichment. These are complementary concerns and presuppose each other. The story that entertains without enriching is superficial and escapist. The story that enriches with-out entertaining is simply dull. The story that does both is a delight.
     (4) Is that what the American viewing public is getting? Perhaps 10% of prime-time network programming is a happy combination of entertainment and enrichment. I think immediately of dramas like I’ll Fly Away and Life Goes On or comedies like Brooklyn Bridge and The Wonder Years. There used to be television movies rich in human values, but they have now become an endangered species. Sleaze and mayhem?. Murder off the front page. The woman in jeopardy?. Is there too much sex on American TV? Not necessarily. Sex is a beautiful, even holy, part of human life, a unique way for husband and wife to express their love. No doubt there is too much dishonest sex on TV. How often do we see the aching emptiness, the joyless despair that so often follows sex without commitment? And certainly there is too much violence. It desensitizes its viewers to the horrors of ac-tual violence and implies that it is an effective way to resolve conflict. I seldom see the dehumanization that violence produces, not only in its victims, but also in its criminals. And I never see the nonviolent alternative — the way of dialogue and love — explored. Jesus has much to teach us here. So do Gandhi and Martin Lu-ther King. Ninety-four percent of the American people believe in God; 41% go to church on any given Sunday. But you’d never know it by watching American TV. We seldom see TV characters reach for God or fight with Him, despite the theatricality latent in their doing so. Why is that? I find television too much concerned with what people have and too little concerned with who they are, very concerned with taking care of No. 1 and not at all concerned with sharing themselves with other people. All too often it tells us the half truth we want to hear rather than the whole truth we need to hear.
     (5) Why is television not more fully realizing its ______ potential? Is the creative community at fault? Par-tially. But not primarily. I have lived and worked in that community for 32 years, as both priest and producer. As a group, these people are not the sex-crazed egomaniacs of popular legend. Most of them love their spouses, dote on? their children and hunger after God. They have values. In fact, in Hollywood in recent months, audi-ence enrichment has become the in thing. ABC, CBS and NBC have all held workshops on it for their pro-gramming executives. A coalition of media companies has endowed? the Humanitas Prize so that it can recog-nize and celebrate those who accomplish it. And during the school year, an average of 50 writers spend a Satur-day a month in a church basement discussing the best way to accomplish it All before the Vice President’s mis-guided lambasting of Murphy Brown.
     (6) The problem with American TV is not the lack of storytellers of conscience but the commercial system within which they have to operate. Television in the U.S. is a business. In the past, the business side has been balanced by a commitment to public service. But in recent years the fragmentation of the mass audience, huge interest payments and skyrocketing production costs have combined with the FCC’s resignation of its responsi-bility to protect the common good to produce an almost total preoccupation with the bottom line. The networks are struggling to survive. And like most business in that situation, they make only what they feel the public will buy. And that, the statistics seem to indicate, is mindless, heartless, escapist fare. If we are dissatisfied with the moral content of what we are invited to watch, I think we should begin by examining our own consciences. When we tune in, are we ready to plunge into reality, so as to extract its meaning, or are we hoping to escape into a sedated world of illusion? And if church leaders want to elevate the quality of the country’s entertainment, they should forget about boycotts, production codes and censorship?. They should work at educating their peo-ple in media literacy and at mobilizing them to support quality shows in huge numbers.
     (7) That is the only sure way to improve the moral content of America’s entertainment.
     【参考译文】电视可以滋养思想与心灵
     （作者凯瑟神父是电视节目《洞察》与《罗米洛》的制作人，也是“人道奖”机构负责人）
     (1)虽然他们的动机受到质疑，可是总统、副总统对电视娱乐节目的道德内涵所做的攻击，已在美国人灵魂的殿堂中引起回响。许多人对发言者并不认同，可是仍然认同他们的讯息。他们都不喜欢美国电视节目的道德腔调。在我们的社会中，论及传达价值观、提供角色典范、形成良知与启发行为等方面，电视的影响力大概只有家庭能出其右。教育家、宗教领袖或政治领袖当中也很少有人的道德影响力能超过那些创造娱乐节目的人。
     (2)凡是好节目，不仅能牢牢抓住观众，也要能启发观众了解做人的意义。这样的节目可以帮助人们成长，成为上帝创造人的本来面目：沉稳、独立自由、充满喜乐与爱。意义、自由与爱——这些就是最高的人性价值。美国观众有权要求娱乐节目的制作者提供这种人性的养料。
     (3) 问题不在于娱乐与教化之间的抉择。这两样是互补的，单独都无法成立。只有娱乐而没有教化的故事太肤浅，而且逃避现实。只有教化而没有娱乐的故事就是枯燥乏味。两者兼具的故事会让人惊喜。
     (4) 美国观众看到的是这样的故事吗？各大电视网黄金时段的节目大概有10%是娱乐与教化的巧妙结合。我脑中想到的是像这些戏：《我要高飞》、《人生还要继续》，还有一些喜剧，像《布鲁克林大桥》和《奇迹年代》。从前的电视影片有些是富有人性价值的，可是现在都成了稀有品种了。庸俗与暴力、头条新闻的谋杀案、妇女遇险。美国电视是否色情泛滥？也不一定。性是人生中美丽的，甚至神圣的一部分，是夫妇之间示爱的一种独特方式。电视上无疑的有太多不诚实的性。没有精神承诺的性，事后痛苦的空虚、无味的绝望，这方面的描述在电视上见到得太少了。电视上的暴力诚然是太多了。暴力镜头让观众对真实暴力的恐怖产生了麻痹，而且它暗示暴力是解决冲突的有效途径。我很少看到电视节目描写暴力的非人化结果：不只是对受害者，更是对施暴者而言。而且从来看不到探讨非暴力的选择——像是对话与爱。这方面耶稣可以引导我们的地方很多。甘地和马丁?路德? 金博士亦然。美国有94% 的人信仰神，每个礼拜天也有41%的人上教堂，可是看美国电视节目绝对猜不到。我们很少看到电视剧中的人物尝试与神沟通或和神奋斗，虽然这方面的主题有很大的戏剧性潜藏其中。为什么？我觉得电视节目太关切人们拥有的，太不关心人的本质；相当关切人如何照顾自己，完全不关心如何将自我与别人分享。电视往往告诉我们的是我们要听的那一半的真理，而不是我们该听的全部的真理。
     (5) 电视为什么不能更完整地实现它促进人性的潜力？是否该归咎于创作电视节目的这圈子？有一部分是的，但不是主要的部分。我在这个圈子生活、工作有32年了，我既是神父也是制作人。这个圈子的人整体来说并不是一般人传说的那种纵欲过度的自大狂。其中大部分都爱配偶、疼小孩、内心渴求上帝。他们是有人生价值的一批人。事实上，这几个月来，好莱坞正在流行如何教化观众。美国、哥伦比亚与国家这三大电视网都举办研讨会，召集节目部主管来谈这个问题。一些媒体公司也集合起来出资损助“人道奖”，以褒扬、奖励达到教化观众目标的节目。本学年中，每个月有一个星期六，平均有50位作家聚集在一个教堂的地下室，讨论如何达成这个目标。这一切都在副总统对《风云女郎》节目的无妄抨击之前。
     (6) 美国电视的问题不是在于缺乏有良心的节目工作者，而是在于他们不得不在其中工作的商业体系。美国的电视是一门生意。从前的生意面还有公共服务这方面的承诺来加以平衡。近年来，大众传播的听众群被瓜分、利息支出庞大、制作成本高涨，再加上联邦通讯委员会放弃了维护公益的职责，于是造成电视节目几乎完全以盈亏为依归。各大电视网在挣扎求生。和一般商家处于危机时一样，他们也只愿生产他们认为有人买的东西。而从统计数字上看，观众要的似乎是没有大脑、没有良心、逃避现实的节目。如果我们对电视公司招待我们观赏的节目，不满它的道德内涵，我想我们首先该反省一下自己的内心。 我们打开电视，是打算投入现实，以粹取其意义，还是希望逃避到一个加了镇定剂的虚幻世界？如果宗教领袖想要提升美国娱乐的品质，不要再搞抵制、制作准则或电检制度，应该致力于教育人民了解媒体基础知识，并动员他们大批地出来支持高品质的节目。
     (7)要改进美国娱乐节目的道德内涵，这是唯一可靠的办法。

Ice – T: Is the lssue Social Responsibility …
     (1) How did the company that publishes this magazine come to produce a record glorifying the murder of police?
     I got my 12-gauge? sawed off
     I got my headlights turned off
     I’m ‘bout? to bust some shots off
     I’m ‘bout to dust some cops off
     Die, Die, Die Pig, Die!
     (2) So go the verse to Cop Killer by the rapper Ice-T on the album Boby Count. The album is released by Warner Bros. Records, part of the Time Warner media and entertainment conglomerate?.
     (3) In a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece laying out the company’s position, Time Warner co-CEO Gerald Levin makes two defenses. First, Ice-T’s Cop Killer is misunderstood. “It doesn’t provoke or glorify vio-lence … It’s his fictionalized attempt to get inside a character’s head … Cop Killer is no more a call for gun-ning down the police than Frankie and Johnny is a summons for neglected lovers to shoot one another.’’ Instead of “finding ways to silence the messenger,” we should be “heeding the anguished? cry contained in his mes-sage.’’
     (4) This defense is self-contradictory. Frankie and Johnny does not pretend to have a political “message” that must be “______.” If Cop Killer has a message, it is that the murder of policemen is a justified response to po-lice brutality. And not in self-defense, but in premeditated acts of revenge against random cops. (“I know your family’s grievin’ — f ---’em.”)
     (5) Killing policemen is a good thing — that is the plain meaning of the words, and no “larger understand-ing” of black culture, the rage of the streets or anything else can explain it away. This is not Ella Fitzgerald tell-ing a story in song. As in much of today’s popular music, the line between performer and performance is pur-posely shadowed. These are political sermonettes? clearly intended to advocate the sentiments being expressed. Tracy Marrow (Ice-T) himself has said, “I scared the police, and they need to be scared.” That seems clear.
     (6) The company’ s second defense of Cop Killer is the classic one of free expression: “We stand for creative freedom. We believe that the worth of what an artist or journalist has to say does not depend on preapproval from a government official or a corporate censor?.”
     (7) Of course Ice-T has the right to say whatever he wants. But that doesn’t require any company to provide him an outlet. And it doesn’t relieve a company of responsibility for the messages it chooses to promote. Judg-ment is not “censorship.” Many an “anguished cry” goes unrecorded. This one was ______, and promoted, be-cause a successful artist under contract wanted to record it. Nothing wrong with making money, but a company cannot take the money and run from the responsibility.
     (8) The founder of Time, Henry Luce, would pour scorn upon the notion that his company should provide a value-free forum? for the exchange of ideas. In Luce’s system, editors were supposed to make value judgments and promote the truth as they saw it. Time has moved far from its old Lucean rigidity — far enough to allow for dissenting? essays like this one. That evolution is a good thing, as long as it’s not a handy excuse for aban-doning all standards.
     (9) No commercial enterprise need agree with every word that appears under its corporate approval. If Time Warner now intends to be “a global force for encouraging the confrontation of ideas,” that’s good. But a policy of allowing diverse viewpoints is not a moral free pass. Pro and con? on national health care is one thing; pro and con on killing policemen is another.
     (10) A bit of sympathy is in order for Time Warner. It is indeed a “global force” with media tentacles? around the world. If it imposes rigorous standards and values from the top, it gets accused of corporate censorship. If it doesn’t, it gets accused of moral irresponsibility. A dilemma. But someone should have thought of that before deciding to become a global force.
     (11) And another genuine ______. Whatever the actual merits of Cop Killer, if Time Warner withdraws the album now the company will be perceived as giving in to outside pressure. That is a disastrous precedent for a global conglomerate.
     (12) The Time-Warner merger of 1989 was supposed to produce corporate “synergy?”: the whole was sup-posed to be more than the sum of the parts. The Cop Killer controversy is an example of negative synergy. Peo-ple get mad at Cop Killer and start boycotting the movie Batman Returns. A reviewer praises Cop Killer (“Tracy Marrow’s poetry takes a switchblade and adept slices life’s jugular?,” etc.), and TIME is accused of corruption instead of mere foolishness. Senior Time Warner executives find themselves under attack for — and defending — products of their company they neither honestly care for nor really understand, and doubtless weren’t even aware of before controversy hit.
     (13) Anyway, it’s absurd to discuss Cop Killer as part of the “confrontation of ideas” — or even as an au-thentic anguished cry of rage from the ghetto?. Cop Killer is a cynical commercial concoction?, designed to tit-illate? its audience with imagery of violence. It merely exploits the authentic anguish of the inner city for further titillation. Tracy Marrow is in business for a buck, just like Time Warner. Cop Killer is an excellent joke on the white establishment, of which the company’s anguished excuse (“Why can’t we hear what rap is trying to tell us?”) is the punch line.
     【参考译文】
     Ice-T：问题是否为社会责任…
     (1)发行这本杂志的公司，怎么会制作出一张歌颂杀警察的唱片？
     锯短了我的霰弹枪
     把我的车头灯关上
     我要几颗子弹开花
     我要轰掉几个警察
     死吧！死吧！猪！死吧！
     (2)拉普歌手Ice-T的专辑《尸体清点》中的《杀警人》一曲，歌词就是这样。发行这张专辑的是华纳兄弟唱片公司，属于时代华纳媒体与娱乐集团的一员。
     (3)　时代华纳公司的副总裁莱文投书《华尔街日报》读者来函版说明公司的立场，文中提出两点辩护。第一，Ice-T的《杀警人》被误解了。“这首歌并不燃点或颂扬暴力，……而是他以虚构的方式尝试进入一个人物的心灵……《杀警人》并不是呼吁别人枪杀警察，就好像老歌《弗朗基与约翰尼》并不号召被欺骗的恋人拿枪互射是一样的。”我们不应该“设法让表达讯息的人住口”，而应“仔细倾听他讯息中的痛苦的呐喊。”
     (4)　这种辩护是自我矛盾的。《弗朗基与约翰尼》并未假装有什么政治“讯息”要人“仔细听”。要说《杀警人》有什么讯息的话，那就是：杀警察是对于警察暴力正当的回应。而且不是为了自卫，而是随便找个警察，有预谋的进行复仇行动。（“我知道你的家人在伤痛——Ⅹ他的。”）
     (5)　杀警察是好事——这是歌词里表示得清清楚楚的，不管是对黑人文化的“更全面的理解”也好，街头的愤怒也罢，不论怎么解释都改变不了这个事实，这和埃拉?菲茨杰拉德用歌曲说故事的情形不同。今天的热门音乐常常如此：表演者与表演内容之间的分野被刻意模糊了。这首歌是政治宣传，很时显的是用来支持歌中表达的感觉的。特雷西? 马罗（Ice-T）自己也说过：“我吓唬到警察，警察也该被吓一吓。”这点应该是蛮清楚的。
     (6)　时代华纳公司对《杀警人》的第二点辩护是常见的言论自由论：“我们支持创作的自由。我们相信艺术家或新闻记者要表达的东西有没有价值，并非取决于事先获得政府官员或企业检查人员的批准。”
     (7)当然Ice-T有权说他爱说的话，可是这并不需要一家公司来为他提供一个讲台。而且公司选择这个讯息来促销，就不能以言论自由来推卸责任。判断力并不是“检查制度”。社会上太多“痛苦的呐喊”一直没有人倾听。这一个呐喊之所以被录下来，被促销，只因为公司旗下一个成功的艺人要录它。赚钱没有错，可是公司不能拿了钱就不负责了。
     (8)《时代杂志》的创办人亨利?卢斯，如果听说他的公司应该提供一个没有价值标准的论坛来做意见交流，他一定会嗤之以鼻。在卢斯的制度下，编辑应该要做价值判断，同时宣扬他们眼中的真理。《时代杂志》离开卢斯时代的僵硬作风已经很远了——远到能容许像这一篇唱反调的评论出现。这种进化是好事，可是不能用它作为很好用的借口来抛弃所有的标准。　
     (9)　公司企业当然不需要对获得公司授权而出现的每一个字都同意。如果时代华纳公司现在打算做“一支全球性的生力军，鼓励不同意见互相交锋”，这当然很好。可是允许不同观念并存的政策，并不是一张道德通行证。全国性医疗保健的利弊辩论是一回事，杀警察的利弊又是一回事。
     (10)时代华纳公司也颇值得同情。它的确是“一支全球性的生力军”，媒体的触角遍及全世界。如果它由上往下冠上严格的价值标准，就会被批评为公司检查言论。如果没有要求标准，也会被批评为不负道德责任。这是两难的局面。可是在决定要做一股全球势力之先就该有人想过这个局面。
     (11)另外还有一个无解的两难。不论《杀警人》本身的真实价值如何，如果时代华纳公司现在收回这张专辑，会被视为向外界压力屈服。这对全球性的集团来说是灾难性的先例。
     (12)1989年时代公司与华纳公司的合并原意是要产生企业的倍数效果：整体的力量应该超过各部分的总和。《杀警人》引起的争议可说是负面倍数效果的实例。消费者对《杀警人》感到恼火，于是开始抵制电影《蝙蝠侠续集》。有一位评论家如此“赞扬”《杀警人》：“特雷西? 马罗的诗歌拿出弹簧刀，熟练地切断生命的颈动脉”云云。《时代杂志》也不仅被批评为愚蠢而已，甚至被称为腐败。资深的时代华纳公司主管们因为公司的产品而饱受攻击，他们还得为这些产品辩解——这些产品其实他们根本没有兴趣，也并不真正了解；而且，在争议爆发之前，肯定是根本不知道有这些产品存在。
     (13) 无论如何，把《杀警人》当作“不同观念的交锋”来讨论——甚至当作贫民区真正痛苦的、愤怒的呐喊来讨论——本身就很荒谬。《杀警人》只是一项虚伪的商业制品，设计来以暴力影像刺激听众。它只是利用贫民区真实的痛苦来做进一步的刺激。特雷西?马罗是为了几个钱在做生意，和时代华纳公司没什么不同。《杀警人》对白人体制开了一个大玩笑，笑话中的笑点就是时代华纳公司痛苦的辩白：“我们为什么不去听听拉普音乐要告诉我们的讯息？”

Welfare: A white Secret
     (1) Come on, my fellow white folks, we have something to confess. No, nothing to do with age spots or those indoor-tanning? creams we use to get us through the winter without looking like the final stages of TB. Nor am I talking about the fact that we all go home and practice scaring dance moves behind drawn shades. Out with it, friends, the biggest secret known to whites since the invention of powdered rouge?: welfare is a white program. Yep. At least it’s no more black than Vanilla Ice is a fair rendition of classic urban rap.
     (2) The numbers go like this: 61% of the population receiving welfare, listed as “means-tested cash assis-tance” by the Census Bureau, is identified as white, while only 33% is identified as black. These numbers not-withstanding, the Republican version of “political correctness” has given us “welfare cheat” as a new term for African American since the early days of Ronald Reagan. Yet if the Lakers were 61% white and on a winning streek?, would we be calling them a “black team”?
     (3) Wait a minute, I can hear my neighbors say, we’re not as slow at math as the Asian Americans like to think. There’s still a glaring disproportion there. African Americans are only 12% of the population as a whole, at least according to the census count, yet they’re 33% of the welfare population — surely evidence of a shocking ad-diction to the dole?.
     (4) But we’re forgetting something. Welfare is a program for poor people, very poor people. African Ameri-cans are three times as likely as whites to fall below the poverty level and hence to have a chance of qualifying for welfare benefits. If we look at the kind of persons most likely to be eligible — single mothers living in poverty with children under 18 to support — we find little difference in welfare participation by race: 74.6% of African Americans in such dire straits are on welfare, compared with 64.5% of the poor white single moms.
     (5) That’s still a difference, but not enough to imply some congenital? appetite for a free lunch on the part of the African-derived. In fact, two explanations readily suggest themselves: First, just as blacks are ______ likely to be poor, they are disproportionately likely to find themselves among the poorest of the poor, where welfare eligibility arises. Second, the black poor are more likely than their white counterparts to live in cities, and hence to have a chance of making their way to the welfare office.
     (6) So why are they so poor? I can see my neighbor asking as visions of slack idlers dance before his nar-rowed eyes. Ah, that is a question white folks would do well to ponder. Consider, for a start, that African Americans are more likely to be disabled (illness being a famous consequence of poverty) or unemployed (in the sense of actively seeking work) and far less likely to earn wages that would lift them out of the wel-fare-eligibility range.
     (7) As for the high proportion of black families headed by single women (44%, compared with 13% for whites): many deep sociohistoric reasons could be referred to, but none of them is welfare. A number of re-spected studies refute the Reagan-era myth that a few hundred a month in welfare payments is a sufficient in-centive to desert one’s husband or get pregnant while in high school. If it were, states with relatively high wel-fare payments — say, about $500 a month per family — would have higher rates of out-of-wedlock births than states like Louisiana and Mississippi, which expect a welfare family to get by on $200 a month or less. But this is not the case.
     (8) So our confession stands: white folks have been swallowing up the welfare budget while blaming someone else. But it’s worse than that. If we look at Social Security, which is another form of welfare, although it is often mistaken for an individual insurance program, then whites are the ones who are crowding the trough. We re-ceive almost twice as much per capita, for an overall advantage to our race of $10 billion a year — much more than the $ 3.9 billion advantage African American gain from their disproportionate share of welfare. One sad reason: whites live an average of six years longer than African Americans, meaning that young black workers help subsidize a huge and growing “over-class” of white retirees. I do not see our confession bringing much re-lief. There’s a reason for resentment, though it has more to do with class than with race. White people are poor too, and in numbers far exceeding any of our more generously pigmented? social groups. And poverty as de-fined by the government is a vast underestimation of the economic terror that persists at incomes — such as $20,000 or even $40,000 and above — that we like to think of as middle class.
     (9) The problem is not that welfare is too generous to blacks but that social welfare in general is too stingy? to all concerned. Naturally, whites in the swelling “near poor” category resent the notion of whole races sup-posedly indulging over their expense. Whites, near poor and middle class, need help too — as do the many African Americans, Hispanics and “others” who do not qualify for aid but need it nonetheless.
     (10) So we white folks have a choice. We can keep pretending that welfare is black program and a scheme for transferring our earnings to the pockets of shiftless, dark-skinned people. Or we can clear our throats, blush prettily and admit that we are hurting too — for cash assistance when we’re down and out, for health insurance, for college aid and all the rest.
     (11) Racial scapegoating? has its charms, I will admit: the surge of righteous anger, even the fun — for those inclined — of wearing sheets and burning crosses. But there are better, nobler sources of white pride, it seems to me. Remember, whatever they say about our music or our taste in clothes, only we can truly, deeply blush.
     【参考译文】福利制度：白人的秘密
     (1)来吧，我的白种同胞们，我们得好好坦白一下。不谈老人斑的事，也不谈我们擦了古铜肤色乳液来度过漫长的冬天，只为了不让自己看起来苍白得像是患有晚期肺痨的样子。我也不是在说那件大家都在做的事：回到家，拉起窗帘，偷练新潮舞步。勇敢地说出来吧，朋友们，这是发明腮红粉饼以来白人之间最大的秘密：福利制度是为白人设的。没错，如果要说福利制度是黑人的，那等于说凡尼拉? 艾丝（香草冰）是正统都市拉普音乐的代名词一样：同样是违反事实。
     (2)实际数字显示，接受福利援助的人口，在人口普查局记录中列为“经查验谋生能力，予以现金援助”的这一类，其中有61% 是白人，而黑人只占33%。虽然统计数字俱在，可是自从里根年代初期开始，共和党式的“政治立场正确”用语中“诈骗福利金的骗子”，就仿佛成了非裔美国人的同义词。但是，假如洛杉矶湖人队中有61% 是白人，并且一路奏捷，到那时我们还会叫它“黑人球队”吗？
     (3) 等等！——我可以听到我的邻居说着——我们的数学能力还不至于像亚裔美国人所想的那么差。这些比例数据当中还有很大的误差。非裔美国人只占全美人口12%，至少人口普查结果是这样。可是他们却占了领取福利金人口的33%——这绝对是黑人极度倚赖救济金的铁证。
     (4) 可是我们忘了一点。福利制度是为收入微薄，尤其是特别穷困的人办的。非裔美国人当中收入不及最低标准，因而可以符合领救济金资格的比例，是白人的三倍。假如我们挑出一种最可能符合救济资格的人——单身妈妈贫户，家中有未满18岁的子女要抚养的——那么接受福利救助的人就没有什么种族差异了：非裔美国人的单亲妈妈贫户有74.6% 在领救济金，白人贫户的单身妈妈则有64.5% 靠救济。
     (5) 这两项数字之间显然仍有差距，可是差别不大，不足以用来解释非洲血统的人先天就特别喜欢白吃的午餐。有两个原因可以解释这个差别。第一，黑人不仅贫穷的比例偏高，而且其中大多数是赤贫阶级。这点就足够让他们符合领救济金的基本条件。条二，和白人穷人比起来，有比较多的黑人贫困户住在都市，因而较有机会到社会福利处领救济金。
     (6) 他们穷要怪谁呢？——我可以看到我的邻居质问着，他的双眼眯起，眼前舞动着好吃懒做的黑人影像。唉！这个问题，白人倒真应该好好的思考一番。譬如，可以先想想这一点：非裔美国人残障的比例就偏高（大家都知道贫穷容易带来疾病），也很容易失业（不是不积极去找工作），而且又不容易有够高的收入使自己脱离对救济金的依赖。
     (7)至于黑人家庭之中单身妈妈的比例为什么特别高（比例高达44%，白人之中的单身妈妈则只占13%），其原因可以从许多社会、历史的层面来探究，可是都和社会福利无关。里根时代制造出一种神话——区区一个月数百元的救济金给付就足以诱使黑人妇女弃夫出走或是在高中时代就怀了孕。这种说法已遭到好几项有分量的研究所驳斥。如果神话属实，那么，相较于像路易斯安那和密西西比这些月付在200元以下的州，救济金给付额度高的州——比如说一个家庭月付500元——非婚生子的比例应该比较高。可是实际情形并非如此。
     (8) 所以，我们理当坦承：白人一直在吞吃福利预算，却怪在别人头上。可是事实尚不只于此。光看社会安全制度就可以了解全局。社会安全也是一种福利，虽然它常被误认为是一种个人的保险计划。在社会安全制度中独享其利的是白人。非裔美国人固然以过高比例在领取社会福利金。总金额达到39亿美元，可是在社会安全给付方面，我们白人平均每人领取的金额几乎是黑人的两倍，总金额更是高达一年100亿美元，几乎是39亿美元的三倍之多。这其中有一项颇为悲哀的原因：白人领得多，是因为他们的平均寿命比黑人多六岁。这表示年轻的黑人工人要帮助补贴一个庞大而且日渐增加的“上层阶级”——白种退休人员。尽管如此，我们的这番自白看不出能带来多大的帮助。社会福利引起的憎恨其来有自，可是其中涉及阶级的因素超过种族的因素。白人也很穷，而且总数还超过其它皮肤色素比较发达的社会团体。此外，政府所界定的贫穷标准，完全无法反映经济恐慌——它存在于我们惯称的中产阶级，像是年收入2万美元甚至4万美元以上这个阶级。
     (9) 问题的关键不在于社会福利对黑人太优渥，而在于整个的福利制度对一切需要帮助的人太吝啬，当然，日渐增多的“接近贫穷”阶级的白人一想到有整个种族好像在享受他们的付出，便会忿忿不平。其实，接近贫穷者和中产阶级的白人他们本身也需援助，此外还更有许多非裔美国人、西裔美国人与“其他”人种，他们虽然不符合援助标准，可是仍然需要帮助。
     (10)于是，我们白人面临一项抉择。我们可以继续自欺欺人，假装福利制度是黑人制度，是将我们所得转移到懒惰无能的黑皮肤人种的口袋的计划。或者，我们可以清清喉咙，很矜持地脸红一下，承认我们也在受苦，在不如意时需要救济金，需要医疗保险，需要大专教育援助等各式各样的帮助。
     (11) 我承认，以别的种族来做代罪羔羊，有它迷人的地方：可以陶醉于突发的义愤中，甚至对于有此癖好的人来说，可以从中获取头顶白床单，焚烧十字架的乐趣。可是我觉得白种人能从更好、更高贵的事物当中发现他们的骄傲。记住，不论他们怎么说我们的音乐或我们穿衣服的品味，只有白种人能真正的、深度的脸红。

好帖,支持一下,

谢谢啊，希望能给大家很多少收获
欢迎来到免费考研网www.freekaoyan.com

支持!!!!!!!!!!!!!

强!!!顶!!

[s:9] 顶一下