题目内容
Decades after Marilyn Monroe’s death, there was a burst of speculation about what she might have been doing if (and it is a very big if) she had not met a premature end from an overdose in 1962, at the age of 36. The American writer Joyce Carol Oates, whose recent novel Blonde is a fictionalized version of Marilyn’s life, thinks she might have left Hollywood for a successful career in the theatre. The feminist commentator Gloria Steinem, who has also written a book about the actress, imagines her living in the country and running an animal sanctuary. I have to say that these imaginary careers, and many other things that have been suggested about Marilyn in recent years, fall into the category of rescue fantasies. The point about her life is that it went hideously and predictably wrong, with self-destruction always a more likely outcome than a revival of her acting career as an interpreter of Chekhov or an early conversion to the animal-rights movement. This is not to denigrate the woman herself, whose story seems to me genuinely tragic. Hers is a dreadful catalogue of abandonment, abuse and a desperate re-invention of the self in terms that successfully courted fame and disaster in just about equal measure. Fragile egos often invited other people’s projections and Marilyn came to see herself, in her own words, as "some kind of mirror instead of a person". This is half-perceptive, in that what she actually became in her lifetime was a blank screen on which men could project their fantasies and anyone who wants to understand what kind of fantasies they were has only to look at Norman Mailer’s creepy biography, with its drooling images of Marilyn as a vulnerable child, incapable of saying no. What she is unlikely to have anticipated is that, four decades later, thoughtful women would look at her image and see, perversely, a reflection of themselves. Ms Steinem has been reported as saying that she thinks Marilyn’s experiences might have pushed her into embracing the women’s movement. But Marilyn was a male-identified woman, a product of a virulently misogynist culture that was erotically stimulated by the pairing of beauty and brains—but only as long as Women did the beauty while men got to direct movies, write plays and run the country. That Marilyn played this role to perfection, then loathed it and rebelled against its limitations, hardly needs saying. In the text we can see that the author bears a/an ______ feeling toward Marilyn Monroe.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
It has been argued that art does not reproduce the visible-it makes things visible-but this does not go far enough. In fact, visual art explores and reveals the brain’s perceptual capabilities and the laws governing it, among which two Line stand supreme: law of constancy and law of abstraction. According to the law of constancy, the visual brain’s function is to seek knowledge of the constant properties of objects and surfaces: the distance, the viewing point, and the illumination conditions change continually, yet the brain is able to discard these changes in categorizing an object. It was an unacknowledged attempt to mimic the perceptual abilities of the brain that led the founders of Cubism, Picasso and Braque, to alter the point of view, the distance and the lighting conditions in their early, analytic period.The second law is that of abstraction, the process in which the particular is subordinated to the general, so that the representation is applicable to many particulars. This second law has strong affinities with the first, because without it, the brain would be enslaved to the particular; the capacity to abstract is also probably imposed on the brain by the limitations of its memory system, because it eliminates the need to recall every detail. Art, too, abstracts and thus externalizes the inner workings of the brain, so that its primordial function is areflection of the function of the brain.Through a process that has yet to be physiologically charted, cells in the brain seem to be able to recognize objects in a view-invariant manner after brief exposure to several distinct views synthesized by them. The artist, too, formsabstractions, through a process that may share similarities with the physiological processes now being unraveled but certainly goes beyond them, in that the abstract idea itself mutates with the artist’s development. But abstraction, a key feature of an efficient knowledge-acquiring system, also exacts a heavy price on the individual, for which art may be a refuge and the abstract "ideal" can lead to a deep discontent, because the daily experience is that of particulars. Michelangelo left three-fifths of his sculptures unfinished, but he had not abandoned them in haste: he often worked on them for years,because time and again the sublimity of his ideas lay beyond the reach of his hands, impressing on him the hopelessness of translating into a single work or a series of sculptures the synthetic ideals formed in his brain. Critics have written in emotional and lyrical terms about these unfinished works, perhaps because, being unfinished, the spectator can finish them and thus satisfy the ideals of his or her brain. This is only qualitatively different from finished works with the inestimable quality of ambiguity-a characteristic of all great art-that allows the brain of the viewer to interpret the work in a number of ways, all of them equally valid. The author regards the idea of ambiguity in a work of art as a feature that is（）
At the fall 2001 Social Science History Association convention in Chicago, the Crime and Justice network sponsored a forum on the history of gun ownership, gun use, and gun violence in the United States. Our purpose was to consider how social science history might contribute to the public debate over gun control and gun rights. To date, we have had little impact on that debate. It has been dominated by mainstream social scientists and historians, especially scholars such as Gary Kleck, John Lott, and Michael Bellesiles, whose work, despite profound flaws, is politically congenial to either opponents or proponents of gun control. Kleck and Mark Gertz, for instance, argue on the basis of their widely cited survey that gun owners prevent numerous crimes each year in the Untied states by using firearms to defend themselves and their property. If their survey respondents are to be believed, American gun owners shot 100,000 criminals in 1994 in self-defense—a preposterous number. Lott claims on the basis of his statistical analysis of recent crime rates that laws allowing private individuals to carry concealed firearms to deter murders, rapes, and robberies, because criminals are afraid to attack potentially armed victims. However, he biases his results by confining his analysis to the year between 1977 and 1992, when violent crime rates had peaked and varied little from year to year. He reports only regression models that support his thesis and neglects to mention that each of those models find a positive relationship between violent crime and real income, and inverse relationship between violent crime and unemployment. Contrary to Kleck and Lott, Bellesiles insists that guns and America’s "gun culture" are responsible for America’s high rate of murder. In Belleville’s opinion, relatively few Americans owned guns before the 1850s or know how to use, maintain, or repair them. As a result, he says, guns contributed little to the homicide rate, especially among Whites, which was low everywhere, even in the South and on the frontier, where historians once assumed gun and murder went hand in hand. According to Bellesiles, these patterns changed dramatically after the Mexican War and especially after the Civil War, when gun ownership became widespread and cultural changes encouraged the use of handguns to command respect and resolve personal and political disputes. The result was an unprecedented wave of gun-related homicides that never truly abated. To this day, the United States has the highest homicide rate of any industrial democracy. Bellesile’s low estimates of gun ownership in early America conflict, however, with those of every historian who has previously studied the subject and has thus far proven irreproducible. Every homicide statistic he presents is either misleading or wrong. Given the influence of Kleck, Lott, Bellesiles and other partisan scholars on the debate over gun control and gun rights, we felt a need to pull together what social science historians have learned to date about the history of gun ownership and gun violence in America, and to consider what research methods and projects might increase our knowledge in the near future. The author’s main criticism of John Lott is that he ______.
平行承发包就是业主将( )。
It has been argued that art does not reproduce the visible-it makes things visible-but this does not go far enough. In fact, visual art explores and reveals the brain’s perceptual capabilities and the laws governing it, among which two Line stand supreme: law of constancy and law of abstraction. According to the law of constancy, the visual brain’s function is to seek knowledge of the constant properties of objects and surfaces: the distance, the viewing point, and the illumination conditions change continually, yet the brain is able to discard these changes in categorizing an object. It was an unacknowledged attempt to mimic the perceptual abilities of the brain that led the founders of Cubism, Picasso and Braque, to alter the point of view, the distance and the lighting conditions in their early, analytic period.The second law is that of abstraction, the process in which the particular is subordinated to the general, so that the representation is applicable to many particulars. This second law has strong affinities with the first, because without it, the brain would be enslaved to the particular; the capacity to abstract is also probably imposed on the brain by the limitations of its memory system, because it eliminates the need to recall every detail. Art, too, abstracts and thus externalizes the inner workings of the brain, so that its primordial function is areflection of the function of the brain.Through a process that has yet to be physiologically charted, cells in the brain seem to be able to recognize objects in a view-invariant manner after brief exposure to several distinct views synthesized by them. The artist, too, formsabstractions, through a process that may share similarities with the physiological processes now being unraveled but certainly goes beyond them, in that the abstract idea itself mutates with the artist’s development. But abstraction, a key feature of an efficient knowledge-acquiring system, also exacts a heavy price on the individual, for which art may be a refuge and the abstract "ideal" can lead to a deep discontent, because the daily experience is that of particulars. Michelangelo left three-fifths of his sculptures unfinished, but he had not abandoned them in haste: he often worked on them for years,because time and again the sublimity of his ideas lay beyond the reach of his hands, impressing on him the hopelessness of translating into a single work or a series of sculptures the synthetic ideals formed in his brain. Critics have written in emotional and lyrical terms about these unfinished works, perhaps because, being unfinished, the spectator can finish them and thus satisfy the ideals of his or her brain. This is only qualitatively different from finished works with the inestimable quality of ambiguity-a characteristic of all great art-that allows the brain of the viewer to interpret the work in a number of ways, all of them equally valid. The author argues that aesthetic creation is useful to an understanding of the visual brain because it（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付