Francis+Ryan

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 cant 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 peoples emotion as well as their own.

Its not just emotions that are shared in this way. Its 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 childhoods 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 Michaels 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 dont.

We arent 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： 大衛(wèi)·鮑伊（1947—2016），英國著名搖滾音樂家，上世紀(jì)60年代后期出道，是70年代華麗搖滾宗師；Prince： Prince Rogers Nelson，普林斯·羅杰斯·內(nèi)爾森（1958—2016），藝名王子，美國歌手、詞曲作家、音樂家和演員，以全面的音樂才能和華麗的服裝及舞臺表演著稱；Leonard Cohen： 萊昂納德·科恩（1934—2016），加拿大創(chuàng)作歌手、音樂人，詩人和小說家，榮獲第52屆格萊美音樂獎終身成就獎，被贊譽(yù)為“搖滾樂界的拜倫”；George Michael： 喬治·邁克爾（1963—2016），英國籍希臘裔創(chuàng)作歌手，1980年組建了威猛樂隊(duì)（Wham），該樂隊(duì)于1985年作為首個(gè)訪華的西方流行樂隊(duì)，引起了極大轟動；Carrie Fisher： 凱麗·費(fèi)雪（1956年—2016），美國女演員、小說家、劇作家，《星球大戰(zhàn)》（Star Wars）中萊婭公主的扮演者。

2. mourn： 悼念，哀悼；killing me softly with his song： 原為美國民謠女歌手Lori Lieberman演唱的一首歌曲。

3. dismiss sth. as： 把某事簡單認(rèn)定為……，草率處理成……；vacuous： 無意義的，空洞的；sentimentality： 感傷，多愁善感。

4. salient： 顯著的，突出的。

5. responsiveness： 響應(yīng)性。

6. 科技使人們能夠準(zhǔn)確觀察遠(yuǎn)距離的讀者并快速做出反應(yīng)，就像演員在劇場中回應(yīng)觀眾一樣。readership：（報(bào)刊、雜志等的全體）讀者。

7. 突如其來的情感沖動以驚人的速度經(jīng)網(wǎng)上擴(kuò)散后被放大，就如同在人群中傳播一樣。impulse： 沖動，一時(shí)的念頭；amplify：放大；astonishing： 驚人的，令人驚訝的。

8. solitary： 獨(dú)自的，單獨(dú)的。

9. collectivization： 集體化。

10. mass media： 大眾媒體；anchor： v. 使固定。

11. 對很多人來說，娛樂產(chǎn)業(yè)已經(jīng)基本取代了宗教儀式，并且在此過程中，它本身也變得更加儀式化，甚至宗教化。ritual： 儀式，ritualised為形容詞，意為儀式化的。

12. franchise： 特許經(jīng)營權(quán)，此處指電影系列。

13. 當(dāng)一切記憶都幾乎要消失時(shí)，兒時(shí)記憶中的頌歌或是贊美詩仍然能夠?qū)V呆癥患者從噩夢中喚醒，但是很快，能夠喚醒他們的就會是童年時(shí)看過的電影的主題曲。dementia： 癡呆癥；rouse： 喚醒；carol：（圣誕）頌歌；hymn： 圣歌，贊美詩。

14. provoke： 激發(fā)，引發(fā)；backlash： （尤指對政治或社會變化的）強(qiáng)烈反應(yīng)。

15. 攻擊名人文化成了諷刺作家寫作的主要內(nèi)容，而且可用來嘲諷的東西有很多——但事實(shí)上（并非只是宗教化的娛樂產(chǎn)業(yè)），所有營利形式的宗教都是這樣。staple： 主要內(nèi)容，基本特點(diǎn)；satirist： 諷刺作家，其動詞原形為satirise；mock： 嘲笑。

16. 人們與自己想象中的名人建立某種關(guān)系，這體現(xiàn)并滿足了人們內(nèi)心的強(qiáng)烈渴望。inhabit： 居住于。

17. 有人可能會說，假想的朋友是以犧牲真正的朋友為代價(jià)的。這就好比你在腦海中思考著喬治·邁克爾私下的驚人善舉或其他類似的事，卻替代不了你親自去食物賑濟(jì)處行善，或去養(yǎng)老院看望老奶奶。cultivate：結(jié)交（朋友）；contemplation： 深思；substitute： 替代品；food bank：（美國）食物賑濟(jì)處。

18. counsel： 勸告，提議。

19. 作為人類這種生物，我們既沒有無窮無盡的同情心，也不會百分百理性地去思考問題。compassion： 同情心；calculation： 深思熟慮。

20. sloppy： 情感脆弱的，多愁善感的。

21. 這些名人與觀眾共同創(chuàng)造了一個(gè)個(gè)有趣的世界，盡管雙方都不能完全理解，但他們卻知道這是他們所需要的。collaborate： 合作，協(xié)作；engrossing： 引人入勝的，極其有趣的；comprehend： 理解，領(lǐng)會。

22. moralistic： 道德說教的。

23. sanctify： 使神圣化，使圣潔化。

24. consolation： 安慰，慰藉。

25. 這場由音樂人和歌迷共同參與的演出最終成為了悲劇之一。

26. 最后，他們的故去和其作品一樣帶給我們震撼，這正是他們被人們?nèi)绱松钋榫拺训脑颉?