金融時報:反烏托邦作品的意義

所屬教程:金融時報原文閱讀

瀏覽:

2022年01月22日

手機(jī)版

掃描二維碼方便學(xué)習(xí)和分享

反烏托邦作品的意義

《饑餓游戲》這樣的反烏托邦作品總能成為流行的大眾文化，這是為什么？今天的反烏托邦作品，與以前的有什么重要的區(qū)別？從《1984》以來的各種各樣的反烏作品能告訴我們什么？

測試中可能遇到的詞匯和知識：

highbrow ['ha?bra?] 知識分子的，曲高和寡的

thrall[θr??l] 奴隸，束縛

keep the rats at bay 意為避免災(zāi)難的降臨

mise en scène 場面調(diào)度

voyeurism[vwɑ:'j?:riz?m] 窺陰癖

sullen ['s?l?n] 陰沉的，不高興的

請閱讀馬上開始，建議您計算一下閱讀整篇文章所用的時間，對照下方的參考值就可以評估出您的英文閱讀水平。

Dystopias tell us where we are going – and where we are not （809 words）

By Peter Aspden, FT Life&Arts writer

“It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen…”

The first, dislocating words of George Orwell's 1984 were meant to stir readers from postwar complacency. Begun in 1947, during the opening skirmishes of the cold war, the novel illustrated the results of allowing an all-powerful state to rule without regard to the rights of its citizens.

It had a profound effect on our culture. Ever since its publication, we have been obsessed by the portrayal of dystopian nightmares. In the 1940s, these were mostly confined to sophisticated journalism and works of fiction, discussed heatedly in highbrow circles. But popular culture has proved to be in greater thrall to the fashioning of future doomsdays. This month, worldwide box office returns for The Hunger Games: Catching Firesurpassed the $700m mark. The film, based on the second part of Suzanne Collins's trilogy of novels, is capturing young imaginations all around the globe. How to explain its popularity? Are we growing more scared, and rather enjoying it? Or are our worst fears being sanitised and rendered more acceptable?

Orwell's satire spawned terms that survive to this day: Newspeak(the official language in 1984), Big Brother, Room 101(the torture chamber of the Ministry of Love in 1984). His remarkable book describes a state of being by which we now measure our civic health.

Today, we are nearly as far away from 1984 as Orwell was.

Orwell's prediction was palpably exaggerated. We bumble along, keeping the rats at bay. Yet our appetite for delving into dystopian fantasy as a form of therapy appears undiminished. We cannot stop picking at the scabs of our deepest fears.

The Hunger Games depicts a world that is cruel and violent, but which allows the glimpses of redemption that is the stuff of cult following. It is a work of its time: although the gladiatorial “games” described are based on the rough pastimes of ancient Roman high society, the mise en scène is strikingly modern.

The premise of the books and films is reassuringly remote. Two children, aged between 12 and 18, are selected every year by lottery from each of 12 outlying districts of a prosperous and unequal city-state. They must fight to the death in an arena created and manipulated by the authorities. There will be only one survivor, and he or she will attain wealth and celebrity status.

But there are many recognisable aspects in the nightmarish society depicted in The Hunger Games: a high camp, effetely attired elite enjoying its insulation from the proletarian masses; a media with frightening technological potential; an unquenchable voyeurism that has caused the loss of ethical bearings.

It is a skilled and occasionally amusing mash-up that provides pricks of discomfort. Ms Collins was inspired while zapping between reality shows and war coverage on television. Her inventions are not so far-fetched. The challenges in the jungle arena of Catching Fire are just extreme forms of the slug-eating, rat-infested trials in I'm a Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here!, the UK reality show(about living in a jungle). Today, we vote to humiliate people; tomorrow we may want to inflict deeper damage.

Our dystopian fantasies are different today. The fears expressed in 1984, and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World before that, were philosophically based. Those fables followed the horrors of the second and first world wars. They pointed out what humanity was capable of, if we were to avert our gaze as in the build-up to those ignoble events.

There is less of that soul-searching in The Hunger Games. We see instead a vivid description of a hypermaterialist society – fired by, and in thrall to, miraculous feats of technology. There has been a convergence between the worst thing we can think of and where we are already heading.

Of course, the true allure of the dystopian story lies in the rebellious figure at its heart, in whom we place our hope of finding a way out of the moral darkness. Here, Orwell and Huxley's protagonists disappoint, crushed by the respective systems against which they are pitted.

In The Hunger Games, the view is not so bleak. The 16-year-old Katniss Everdeen is the chosen vehicle for revolutionary change. Remember girl power? This could be its finest moment: we happily pin our hopes for insurrection on a sullen adolescent who fights the system with nothing more sophisticated than a bow and arrow.

Computerised infernos(hell) can be brought down by the most rudimentary of weapons; solidarity with morally just causes can vanquish unfeeling oppressors. The nightmares of the 21st century may feel close enough to touch; but they are more easily ended. These are messages from a society that feels generally pleased with itself. Whatever fresh hell we think of, we will find a way out. It is a triumph of the human spirit, of sorts.

請根據(jù)你所讀到的文章內(nèi)容，完成以下自測題目：

1.When did George Orwell write the book 1984?

A.In 1984.

B.During World War One.

C.Between the two world wars.

D.After World War Two.

答案(1)

2.1984 “had a profound effect on our culture”, thanks to?

A.The two world wars.

B.Sophiscated journalism.

C.Popular movies and novels.

D.Doomsday mood.