Toward A New Definition Of Celebrity

2m ago
2 Views
0 Downloads
544.06 KB
16 Pages
Last View : Today
Last Download : n/a
Upload by : Francisco Tran
Transcription

Toward a NewDefinition of CelebrityBY NEAL GABLERSENIOR FELLOWTHE NORMAN LEAR CENTER

1THE NORMAN LEAR CENTERNEAL GABLER, Toward a New Definition of CelebrityToward a New Definition of CelebrityBy Neal Gabler, Senior Fellow, The Norman Lear CenterTHE NORMAN LEAR CENTERThe Norman Lear Center is a multidisciplinary research and publicpolicy center exploring implicationsof the convergence of entertainment, commerce, and society.Located at the USC AnnenbergSchool for Communication, the LearCenter builds bridges betweeneleven schools whose faculty studyaspects of entertainment, media,and culture. Beyond campus, itbridges the gap between the entertainment industry and academia,and between them and the public.Through scholarship and research;through its programs of visitingfellows, conferences, public events,and publications; and in its attemptsto illuminate and repair the world,the Lear Center works to be at theforefront of discussion and practicein the field.THE LEAR CENTER FELLOWSPROGRAMThe Lear Center Fellows Programbrings in leading practitioners andthinkers, often in collaboration withother USC schools, to contributetheir experience and insight. Visitingscholars, journalists, social critics,public intellectuals, and writers-inresidence stimulate discussion anddebate on the issues important tothe Lear Center.NEAL GABLERNeal Gabler, Senior Fellow at theUSC Annenberg Norman LearCenter, is an author, cultural historian, and film critic. His first book, AnEmpire of Their Own: How the JewsInvented Hollywood, won the LosAngeles Times Book Prize and theTheatre Library Association Award.His second book, Winchell: Gossip,Power and the Culture of Celebritywas named non-fiction book of theyear by Time magazine. His mostrecent book is Life the Movie: HowEntertainment Conquered Reality,and he is currently at work on abiography of Walt Disney.Gabler has contributed to numerouspublications including The New YorkTimes, The Los Angles Times,Esquire, New York Magazine, Vogue,AmericanHeritage, TheNew YorkRepublic, Us,and Playboy.He hasappeared onmany television programsincluding TheToday Show,The CBSMorningNews, TheNews Hour,EntertainmentTonight,Charlie Rose, and Good MorningAmerica. Gabler also hosted SneakPreviews for PBS.Gabler held fellowships from theFreedom Forum Media StudiesCenter and the GuggenheimFoundation. He served as the chiefnon-fiction judge of the NationalBook Awards and judged the LosAngles Times Book Prizes.Gabler has taught at the Universityof Michigan and at PennsylvaniaState University. He graduatedsumma cum laude from theUniversity of Michigan and holdsadvanced degrees in film andAmerican culture.

2THE NORMAN LEAR CENTERNEAL GABLER, Toward a New Definition of CelebrityToward a New Definitionof CelebrityNearly forty years ago in his pathbreaking book, The Image: A Guide toPseudo-Events in America, the cultural historian Daniel Boorstin issued hisnow-famous tautological proclamation on celebrity and effectively wrotewhat has been an epitaph for any serious consideration of the phenomenon. As Boorstin defined him, albeit with a distinct moralistic slant, acelebrity is a “person who is known for his well-knownness.” He is theMost of usappreciate thatcelebrity andgreatness are notthe same.“human pseudo-event” who has been manufactured for us but who hasno substantiality –– something hollow that is a manifestation of our ownhollowness. There was a time, Boorstin wrote, when the famous werealso the great, which meant that fame was a function of accomplishment. But he recognized that in his contemporary America of the 1960sthis was no longer true since there were famous individuals who seemedto have accomplished very little, and he leapt from that recognition tothe conclusion that greatness and celebrity were locked into a zero-sumgame. The more celebrity you had, the less greatness you had, apparently on the assumption that the fame granted a celebrity devalues genuinefame that had been earned, in Boorstin’s words, via “the slow, the natu-There are peoplewho have gainedrecognition for havingdone nothing ofsignificance.ral’ way” rather than the “manufactured” or “artificial way.”Most of us appreciate that celebrity and greatness are not the samecommodity, but there is nevertheless a problem with Boorstin’s oft-quoted definition. Though there are obviously people who have gainedrecognition for having done virtually nothing of significance — a phenomenon I have called the “Zsa Zsa Factor” in honor of Zsa Zsa Gabor,who parlayed her marriage to actor George Sanders into a brief moviecareer and the movie career into a much more enduring celebrity —Boorstin’s definition is simply not true for the vast majority of celebrities.Unless you use the term to define itself — that is, a celebrity is by definition someone who is famous for not having accomplished anything of

3THE NORMAN LEAR CENTERNEAL GABLER, Toward a New Definition of Celebrityvalue — most of the people we call celebrities have accomplished something, and many of them have accomplished a great deal. MichaelJordan, Shaquille O’Neal, Wayne Gretzky, Mark McGwire and other starathletes are by any measure celebrities, yet they are also by any measureachievers as well. Likewise, Julia Roberts, Tom Hanks, Barbra Streisandand Marlon Brando. They are undeniably celebrities, but they are also,at the very least, remarkable entertainers. To deny their achievements isas meaningless as denying their celebrity. And one can make a converseargument for any number of writers, musicians, visual artists, politicians,even the occasional captain of industry. To deny their celebrity is asCelebrity is an artform wrought in themedium of life.meaningless as denying their achievements.Writing at a time when celebrity was relatively fresh and highly suspect,Boorstin was exercising a traditionalist’s bias in regarding it as a kind ofcultural deformity along with so many other products of mass media.But in the years since, with the explosion of celebrity and its increasingcentrality in American life, another possibility has arisen — one thatwould no doubt offend Boorstin and other traditionalists but one thatmay better enable us to understand how celebrity functions thanCelebrity seems torefract many of thebasic concerns of theculture.Boorstin’s dismissive definition did. It is entirely possible that celebrity,far from being a symptom of cultural degradation, is actually an artform wrought in the medium of life. More, on the evidence, it is evenpossible that celebrity is now our dominant art form, not only in theattention it demands or in the way it subjugates other media but in theway it seems to refract so many of the basic concerns of the culture,precisely as art does.Boorstin was right on one thing: Celebrity is a function of “well-knownness.” Needless to say, a celebrity must be known or he is no celebrity,which is why publicity is a prerequisite. Boorstin was wrong, however, inseeing celebrity as only a function of well-knownness. While there is nosuch thing as a celebrity who isn’t famous, there are famous individualswhom most of us would not consider celebrities. Queen Elizabeth is certainly famous, but one doubts whether most Americans would call her a

4THE NORMAN LEAR CENTERNEAL GABLER, Toward a New Definition of Celebritycelebrity the way Princess Di was. George Bush, Sr. is famous, but he isnot a celebrity. His successor Bill Clinton is. Vice President Dick Cheney isfamous, but he is no celebrity. There are no paparazzi elbowing oneanother aside to snap Cheney’s picture, no swooning Cheney fans crying out, “Dick, Dick,” most of all no Cheney stories filling the tabloids.*So what turns a famous person into a celebrity? The grand answer, onempirical evidence, seems to be narrative. The main reason we want toread about certain individuals in the supermarket tabloids or in Peopleor Vanity Fair, or we want to watch television reports about them on“Entertainment Tonight” or “Access Hollywood” is that we are interested in their stories: In Matthew Perry’s drug addiction, in Tom Cruise’sand Nicole Kidman’s divorce, in the serial romances of Russell Crowe, inJesse Jackson’s love child, in the Hillary/Bill relationship. Queen Elizabethand Dick Cheney may have fame, but they don’t have stories. (OfSo what turns afamous person into acelebrity? Narrative.course, in England Elizabeth may have become a celebrity by virtue ofhaving become a player in Di’s story.) Frankly, if they did, they would becelebrities, too.My own incipient definition of celebrity in my book Life the Movie: HowEntertainment Conquered Reality was that a celebrity was “humanentertainment,” by which I obviously meant not a conventional entertainer but a person who, by the very process of living, provided entertainment for us — a definition that embraced most conventional entertainers, such as movie and television stars, whose lives fill the gossipcolumns and magazines, but also businessmen like Donald Trump,*The issue is complicated by something I shall address in a later paperon “celebrity treatment.” The media have devised a semiotics of celebrity in both word and image that they apply to virtually anyone theycover whether he is a celebrity or not. Therefore, non-celebrities receivethe “celebrity treatment,” a kind of breathless glamorization which maylead us to confuse them with real celebrities.

5THE NORMAN LEAR CENTERNEAL GABLER, Toward a New Definition of Celebritypoliticians like Bill and Hillary Clinton, fashion designers like RalphLauren, alleged criminals like O.J. Simpson, even certain products thathave especially fascinating origins or astonishing sales the recounting ofwhich could provide entertainment for us. In retrospect, however, thatdefinition was inadequate because, for one thing, it didn’t identify thesource of the entertainment: Plotlines. What all these people and thingshave in common is that they are living out narratives that capture ourinterest and the interest of the media — narratives that have entertainment value. Or put another way, what stars are to traditional movies,What stars are totraditional movies,celebrities are to the“life movie!”celebrities are to what I call the “life movie” — a movie written in themedium of life.Boorstin himself realized that fame had a narrative component, but heexplicitly separated the narrative from the celebrity. Using aviatorCharles Lindbergh as an example, Boorstin saw Lindbergh’s greatnessand subsequent fame flowing from his accomplishment of having flownsolo across the Atlantic Ocean in 1927. Lindbergh transmogrified into acelebrity only when his publicity and popularity reached a critical masswhere they became the story, usurping the accomplishment itself andmaking Lindbergh well known for being well known.Occasionally even thesuggestion of anarrative is enough tocreate celebrity.Or so Boorstin has it. Putting aside the issue of whether gaining popularity by whatever means isn’t itself a kind of accomplishment in America,what Boorstin failed to recognize is that popularity is the by-product ofcelebrity, not its source. For Lindbergh, the source was the narrative ofthat flight — a narrative that was later elaborated by his marriage tosocialite Anne Morrow and by the tragic kidnapping and murder of theirbaby in 1932. He wasn’t well known for being well known. He was wellknown — a celebrity — because he had a great story, and he remained acelebrity because he, or history, kept adding new chapters to it.Of course you don’t need a great story to be a celebrity any more thana movie needs a great script to be a film. Occasionally even the suggestion of a narrative is enough to create celebrity if the suggestion hints atsuch durable narrative crowd-pleasers as sex or violence. Take the typical

6THE NORMAN LEAR CENTERNEAL GABLER, Toward a New Definition of Celebrityfashion model. In the case of Gisele Bündchen, the Brazilian bombshellprominently featured in Victoria’s Secret ads, her beauty plants a narrative seed. Her looks are intriguing enough that we want to know whather story is. For those who care, it turns out that she is being touted asthe new look in fashion models, voluptuous rather than waiflike — alook that makes her in demand on the runways and in the haute couture magazines. More important, as with most widely photographedmodels, her beauty catapults her into the world of celebrity where she isessentially a walk-on in other people’s narratives. But once she arrives inthat world, the story needs more heft if she is to achieve her own realcelebrity, and in Gisele’s case, it gets that heft. She begins being seenwith the actor Leonardo DiCaprio. They deny a romance. A few monthslater there are rumors of an engagement ring, which again they deny.Conventionalentertainers are thelikeliest candidatesfor celebrity. Theycome equipped withpublicity and anarrative.(The plot thickens.) Then finally and suddenly they announce their nuptials. Bingo! Gisele has now entered as co-star another celebrity narrative, DiCaprio’s, where if she plays her cards right, she can maintain hercelebrity for quite a while — certainly much longer than if she hadremained just another pretty face without a story to go with it.Though the Giseles of the world are proliferating, there are sound reasons why conventional entertainers like Leonardo DiCaprio remain thelikeliest candidates for celebrity, first and foremost of which is that starsby virtue of being stars come equipped with the first two prerequisitesfor celebrity: Publicity and what might be called a “foundation narrative.” They all have the story of their success, always a good tale andthe subplot of everything else they are likely to do in their lives. So longas one keeps building one’s career, keeps leaping from one success tothe next, one really doesn’t need much more of a narrative to sustainone’s celebrity. Think of Tom Hanks whose life has few soap operaticelements but whose success has continued unimpeded and whosecelebrity flourishes as a result.Conventional stars also have the advantage over other potential celebrities of being able to draw on the roles they play which their fans often

7THE NORMAN LEAR CENTERNEAL GABLER, Toward a New Definition of Celebrityconflate with the stars’ real lives, allowing the actors, in effect, to borrow the narratives from their movies or television shows. A great loveron screen is frequently assumed to be a great lover in real life, a toughguy on screen a tough guy in life, a great soul on screen a great soul inlife. The only action John Wayne saw in World War II was on the screenin war films, yet his heroism in those movies became welded to his personal narrative to the point where he was given awards and honors forhis bravery. People believed, evidently wanted to believe, that it was hisstory and not just his performance.Finally, stars of conventional media benefit from the fact that they aremore likely to generate a narrative because they are much more likely tobe at the center of the action — to be sued or stalked or attacked orromanced. Thus when would-be extortionists plotted to kidnap him,Stars generate anarrative becausethey are much morelikely to be at thecenter of the action.Australian actor Russell Crowe was able to add this thriller sequence tohis foundation narrative and to the narrative of his ill-fated romancewith actress Meg Ryan. Or when an obsessive fan managed to invadeher Malibu home, Pamela Anderson was able to add the brief scene toher tempestuous relationship to rock star Tommy Lee. Even relativelyminor episodes become larger when they star a star: Actress HalleBerry’s auto mishaps, Tom Cruise’s purportedly saving a life, SandraBullock’s surviving a bumpy plane landing.In the taxonomy of celebrity stories, one might call these sorts of narratives star-driven, and it is axiomatic that the bigger the star, the lesscompelling the narrative has to be, which is why a Bruce Willis or a BillClinton need only attend a function or eat in a restaurant to get presscoverage. But just as there are movies that rely on the ingenuity of plotrather than on star power, so there are celebrity narratives that are plotdriven. John Wayne Bobbitt, Joey Buttafuoco, Kato Kaelin and TonyaHarding have all been thrust into minor celebrity because they havestarred in entertaining vehicles that commanded press attention,though, given the fact that these narratives are all one-shots withoutthe foundation narrative or much likelihood for elaboration, they

8THE NORMAN LEAR CENTERNEAL GABLER, Toward a New Definition of Celebrityprovide a more evanescent form of celebrity. As the central narrativefades, there is little more these players can do to sustain it, howevermuch, like Buttafuoco, or Kaelin they may try, because there isn’t thepublicity for their work that conventional stars enjoy when they are outflogging a movie or TV show. In time, the stars of plot-driven celebrityrun out of plot and necessarily run out of celebrity, becoming the lifemovie equivalents of faded film stars who no longer have their picturesto keep them in the public consciousness.Boorstin, looking at the dearth of achievement in celebrity, saw allCelebrity requires acorporate protagonistwho can provide adynamic plot.celebrity as perishable. Once the publicity is withdrawn, so is the celebrity since there is nothing, presumably, left behind. But celebrities don’tperish because the publicity is withdrawn. The publicity is withdrawnbecause they cease to provide a narrative that is worth writing about orbroadcasting, or, from the audience’s point of view, worth watching orreading about. This is especially true of conventional stars when theirfoundation narrative falters and there is no success to fuel another story.So long as you can provide a story, there need not be closure until youdie, though there are individuals like Marilyn Monroe, James Dean andJohn F. Kennedy whose narratives continue through revelations and rein-Celebrity depends onthe idea of tangibility.terpretations long after the stars themselves have departed.Whether they still qualify as celebrities in death is open to debate, butone could make a powerful case that celebrity also requires a corporealprotagonist who can continue to provide a dynamic plot and who hasnot just left behind a narrative to be amended and reworked by otherslike some ancient text. Dead celebrities are just that: Their stories areentombed. Since celebrity is a kind of performance art, if audiencesdon’t feel there is a live personality starring in the narrative, if theydon’t feel that the narrative can take new and surprising turns, if theydon’t feel that they could actually meet the protagonist, there is someessential frisson missing. Celebrity seems to depend to some degree onthe idea of tangibility.

9THE NORMAN LEAR CENTERNEAL GABLER, Toward a New Definition of CelebrityOf course movies and television shows have tangible stars, too and, asnoted, people do confuse the person with the part. But one of thethings that generates the excitement of celebrity, one of the things thatdistinguishes celebrity narratives from the fictional or even fact-basednarratives of conventional media, is the congruence between the personand the narrative he is living. Thirty years ago, when fans would seeElizabeth Taylor they knew that she — that person –– had had greatromances, had pried singer Eddie Fisher from wife Debbie Reynolds, hadleft husband Fisher for actor Richard Burton, had had a stormy onagain, off-again marriage with Burton. They knew, in effect, that it wasn’t make-believe –– that this woman had actually done those things andthat those things were invested in her person. She was a human versionof Walter Benjamin’s original object as opposed to its reproduction,The excitement ofcelebrity is generatedby the congruencebetween the personand his narrative.which is what she played in the movies, and it is entirely possible thatthe public urge for the original is one of the primary sources for the riseof celebrity. We want the real thing.Talmudists of celebrity may debate whether fictional characters — aHarry Potter, a Pokeman, a Scarlett O’Hara, a Santa Claus — can everbe considered celebrities since they lack both tangibility (they don’t really exist) and they lack personal narratives. It may have been with this inmind that Walt Disney back in the mid-1930s felt compelled to concocta back story for his own putative celebrity, Mickey Mouse. Children, notrealizing that Mickey wasn’t tangible, would write Disney wanting toknow if Mickey and Minnie were married –– that is, they wanted toknow his life narrative. To fulfill that narrative expectation, Walt oncetold a magazine interviewer that Mickey and Minnie played boyfriendand girlfriend on screen but that in “real life” they were married. Thusdid Mickey make his bid for celebrity — one that was fated to failshould children discover that Mickey wasn’t real and that they couldnever meet the original, only the facsimile at Disneyland or DisneyWorld in the same way they might meet Santa Claus at Macy’s. It is onlythose true innocents who think that Disneyland’s Mickey is Mickey or

10THE NORMAN LEAR CENTERNEAL GABLER, Toward a New Definition of CelebrityMacy’s Santa is Santa for whom Mickey and Santa can be celebrities,which is why so many parents, myself included, lied to our children. Wedidn’t want to deny them the thrill of celebrity.By this analysis, it is clear that celebrity is not, as Boorstin theorized, athing that one acquires the way one might acquire fame, simply bybeing grazed by the media spotlight. Like any work of art, celebrity isthe product of a process. One needs a performer. One needs a personalreal-life, or purportedly real-life, narrative, even if it is only the foundation narrative. One needs publicity for that narrative. And last, but by noLike any work of artcelebrity is theproduct of a process.means least, one needs fans — an audience to appreciate the narrativeand admire its star; for in the end, celebrity without someone to consume it is like a movie without someone to watch it. Or to paraphraseBerkeley, if a celebrity story is generated and there is no one to hear orsee it, it doesn’t make a sound. Di without the adoring throngs, Jordanwithout the hero-worshippers, Buttafuoco without the glad-handingwell-wishers, any movie star without the screaming mobs wouldn’t becelebrities. By the same token, Timothy McVeigh had publicity, a narrative and, before his execution, tangibility, but without fans to anointCelebrity is a great,new entertainment ina society hungry forentertainment.him, he was just another well-known criminal — a protagonist in a storybut not its star. He wasn’t a celebrity.Attempting to find a working definition of celebrity would be a sterileacademic exercise if the result didn’t help explain the phenomenon andbring us closer to some understanding of why it seems so utterlybewitching. The new definition proffered here is intended to provide afew provisional conclusions. For one thing, it may go some way towardexplaining why celebrity has become a kind of cultural kudzu. Seen as anarrative form, celebrity is a great new entertainment in a society everhungry for entertainment. It is pliant, novel, authentic rather than imagined, by definition plausible and suspenseful since it is constantlyunwinding. In effect, celebrity is the ultimate in so-called reality programming. More, it is adaptable to other media the way, say, a novelmight be adapted for the screen, creating unparalleled opportunities for

11THE NORMAN LEAR CENTERNEAL GABLER, Toward a New Definition of Celebritysynergy. Celebrity provides magazines, television, newspapers, booksand increasingly the Internet with stories and stars; these media in turnprovide celebrity, having no screen of its own, with a veritable multiplexto reach the public.In fact, celebrity narratives are now so exciting and inventive that fictional narrative has a hard time competing with them. When directorTaylor Hackford complained that his film Proof of Life, featuring RussellCelebrity is theultimate in realityprogramming.Crowe and Meg Ryan, fared so poorly at the box office because themovie was superseded by the story of the romance between its stars, hewas implicitly acknowledging celebrity as an art form. While it has oftenbeen true that tabloid stories about stars have created an appetite tosee those stars on screen, what Hackford was essentially saying is that,given the choice, the audience seemed to prefer the real-life story to thefictionalized one, and if they wanted their dose of Crowe and Ryan,they were going to get it in the tabloids and on the tabloid TV showsrather than on the movie screen.Celebrity narrativeis so exciting andinventive thatfictional narrativehas a hard timecompeting.Critics of celebrity have rightfully complained that celebrity seems tohave no moral component — that even an O.J. Simpson can become acelebrity with fans eager to see him, touch him, get his autograph.Thinking of celebrity as an art form may go some way toward explaining that, too. The problem with celebrity is not that it is vaguelyimmoral, as Boorstin seemed to suggest, or fundamentally amoral butthat, like any art form, it is fundamentally aesthetic. Aesthetically speaking, celebrity narratives can be either good or bad. They can appeal tous as stories or not. They can either be entertaining or not, complex ornot, resonant or not. Taking the example of Simpson, however one feltabout him personally, most people seemed to think that his story was,by aesthetic standards, a fascinating one — rich in plot and strummingthematic chords of race, sex, power. The fact that he already had fansfrom his days as a football player and actor meant that the new chaptercould intensify his celebrity.

12THE NORMAN LEAR CENTERNEAL GABLER, Toward a New Definition of CelebrityStill, plots are seldom neutral. Stories can and almost always do encapsulate values. In conventional fictional narrative art, say novels ormovies, we are occasionally confronted with the situation of liking theplot but disapproving of its values or, more often, of disapproving of aprotagonist but liking the author’s values. Unfortunately, when it comesto celebrity narratives one cannot so easily make the distinctionbetween the plot and its values or between the protagonist’s values andthe author’s because the protagonist is the author and the plot is whatwe choose to make of it. For some people, the O.J. Simpson story is atale of injustice — the system’s toward O.J. For others, the tale lays outanother sort of injustice — O.J.’s over the system. Except in situationslike McVeigh’s where the public seems unified in its horror and contempt, the same plot is susceptible to different interpretations, differentconclusions and different values, which is also why Simpson can actuallyWhat celebrity lacksis an authorial voiceto impose moral valueon the narrative.retain fans. What celebrity lacks, then, is an authorial voice to imposemoral value on the narrative — a deficiency that is easy to mistake forhaving no moral values whatsoever. It gets even easier to make thatmistake when fans, whose only paradigm for celebrity is the movies,turn the stars of the celebrity narratives, like Simpson or Buttafuoco,into objects of devotion on the principle that, barring total depravity, astar of any medium, even life, is still a star.The most important aspect of celebrity that a new definition mightbring into sharper focus, however, is function. As Boorstin disapprovingly saw celebrity, it was a way for a narcissistic society to whittle thegreat down to its own size — to reduce sequoias to splinters. This,almost any contemporary observer would now concede, was too reductive an analysis. Whether or not one thinks of celebrity as an art form, itcertainly performs many of the functions of art. Celebrity narratives canreinforce fears and dreams, instruct and guide us, transport us fromdaily routine, reassure us that we are not alone in what we think andfeel, impose order on experience. This is what the critic Richard Schickelwas onto over fifteen years ago in his brilliant study of celebrity,

13THE NORMAN LEAR CENTERNEAL GABLER, Toward a New Definition of CelebrityIntimate Strangers: The Culture of Celebrity in America, when he calledcelebrity “the principle source of motive power in putting across ideasof every kind — social, political, aesthetic, moral.”If celebrity is the new art form, it may have been the inadequacy of traditional narrative forms in fulfilling their obligations that has helpedmake it so. Celebrity not only has narrative advantages over traditionalart, it seems to be the most effective, the most efficient, the mostaccessible, the most rapid, the nimblest means to reify the country’sinchoate fears and longings and to do so entertainingly to boot.Celebrity is protean. It can touch upon practically anything in Americanlife: Race (O.J. Simpson), changing sexual roles (Bobbitt), middle-age crisis (Bill Clinton), betrayal (Woody Allen and Mia Farrow), sexual harass-If celebrity is the newart form, it may havebeen the inadequacyof traditional narrativeforms in fulfillingtheir obligations thathelped make it so.ment (Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill), you name it. One is almostassured that if an issue is roiling somewhere in the American consciousness there will eventually be a celebrity narrative to dramatize it.The basic star-driven narrative may have narrower range than theseplot-driven ones, but whatever it lacks in variety it compensates for inresonance. Whether it is the standard success story or the standardaddiction story or the standard divorce story, star-driven narratives ultimately resolve themselves into an overarching archetype, which, as Iwrote in Life the Movie, is the very same archetype that the anthropologist Joseph Campbell described in his landmark study of cross-culturalmyths, The He

celebrity because he, or history, kept adding new chapters to it. Of course you don't need a great story to be a celebrity any more than a movie needs a great script to be a film. Occasionally even the sugges-tion of a narrative is enough to create celebrity if the suggestion hints at such durable narrative crowd-pleasers as sex or violence.

Related Documents:

Trigonometric Formula Sheet De nition of the Trig Functions Right Triangle De nition Assume that: 0 ˇ 2 or 0 90 hypotenuse adjacent opposite sin opp hyp csc hyp opp cos adj hyp sec hyp adj tan opp adj cot adj opp Unit Circle De nition Assume can be any angle. x y y x 1 (x;y) sin y 1 csc 1 y cos x 1 sec 1 x tan y x .

We use the de nition of piecewise continuous functions from De nition 11:5:4 in [1] to give De nition 2.3 and use Proposition 11:5:6 in [1] to give Theorem 2.3. fj J is de ned as the restriction of a function fto a subset Jof its domain. De nition 2.3. A function fis piecewise continuo

TD 1 : Quelques rappels de probabilit es Exercice 1 1.Donner la d e nition d’une variable al eatoire r eelle et de sa loi de probabilit e. 2.Donner la d e nition de la fonction de r epartition d’une variable al eatoire r eelle. 3.Donner la d e nition d’une densit e. 4.Expliquer les int er ets de la fonction de r epartition et de la densit e.

De nition 1.3. A locally convex algebra Ais called m-convex if the topology on it can be de ned by a family of submultiplicative seminorms. De nition 1.4. A complete locally m-convex algebra is called an Arens-Michael algebra. De nition 1.5. Let Abe a -algebra and let Mbe a complete loc

In order to understand origami construction, we will need to understand some of the most basic folds that can be created. The following is the de nition given by Auckly and Cleveland of origami pair. This de nition is the basis of what we mean by \origami" in this paper: De nition 3.1. fP;Lgis an

The Cisco CHS 435HDC High-Defi nition Set-Top (CHS 435HDC) with Multi-Stream CableCARD (M-Card ) Interface receives and delivers digital signals, and it delivers high-defi nition programming in exceptional picture and audio quality. Use the simple user interface to access favorite cha

function, but the DE de nition we gave is less contrived and focuses on what makes the function useful. Proof of Theorem 7.5. (a)True by de nition. (b)True by de nition. (c) As a warm-up, consider the special case in which w 3. By the chain rule, ez 3 is the solution to the DE with initial condition f0(z) f(z); f(0) e3: 5

5 Semide nite programming (SDP) Semide nite programming is the broadest class of convex optimization problems we consider in this class. As such, we will study this problem class in much more depth. 5.1 De nition and basic properties 5.1.1 De nition De nition 6. A semide nite program is an optimization problem of the form min X2S n Tr(CX) s.t .

Big-Theta De nition De nition Let f and g be two functions f;g :N ! R .We say that f(n) 2 ( g(n)) (read: f is Big-Theta of g) if there exist constants c1;c2 2 R and n0 2 N such that for every integer n n0, c1g(n) f(n) c2g(n) I Intuition: f is (asymptotically ) equal to g. I f is bounded above and below by g. I Big-

formalize the notion of group homomorphisms, isomorphims, and automorphisms, which we will do with de nitions taken from Steinberger [7]. De nition 1.3. Let Gand G 0be groups. A homomorphism from Gto G0is a function f: G!G such that f(x y) f(x) f(y) for all x;y2G. De nition 1.4. An isomorphism is a homomorphism that is one-to-one and onto. De .

Perform the dissection only on the dissection tray. Follow proper hygiene practices before, during, and after the lab. 2 Direction or Plane Definition Lateral Toward the right or left side Medial Toward the midline Proximal Near or toward the point of reference Distal Away from the point of reference Dorsal Toward the back Ventral Toward the belly

tilt of the pelvis toward the left. Thus the lumbar spine showed a scoliosis that was convex toward theleft. 6. The lumbar lordosis usually wasincreased. 7. The vertebral bodies rotated toward the right side,-that is, toward the concavity ofthe scoliosis ‘. 8. Thetrunk, asawhole, tended tolist toward the right.

akuntansi musyarakah (sak no 106) Ayat tentang Musyarakah (Q.S. 39; 29) لًََّز ãَ åِاَ óِ îَخظَْ ó Þَْ ë Þٍجُزَِ ß ا äًَّ àَط لًَّجُرَ íَ åَ îظُِ Ûاَش

Collectively make tawbah to Allāh S so that you may acquire falāḥ [of this world and the Hereafter]. (24:31) The one who repents also becomes the beloved of Allāh S, Âَْ Èِﺑاﻮَّﺘﻟاَّﺐُّ ßُِ çﻪَّٰﻠﻟانَّاِ Verily, Allāh S loves those who are most repenting. (2:22

construct the fundamental group of this structure. Keywords: Torus Fundamental Group. 1 Introduction 1.1 Basic Topology We start by introducing some new concepts in topology that are crucial in un-derstanding fundamental groups. De nition 1. A path is a continuous map f: I7!X. De nition 2. A loop in a pointed space (X;x 0) is a path : [a;b] 7!Xsuch

1.3 Fibrations, Yoneda, and more examples Before we talk about more examples, we need to introduce a new de nition. De nition 1. Let f: S!Tbe a morphism of simplicial complexes (that is, a natural transformation). Then fis a bration if for every pair of morphisms n i!S

Chapter 1 Metric Spaces These notes accompany the Fall 2011 Introduction to Real Analysis course 1.1 De nition and Examples De nition 1.1. Given a set X a metric on X is a function d: X X!R

de ning the terms we will use for the remainder of this chapter. De nition 1. A graph G (V;E) is a set of vertices V and a set of dgese E. Each edge e 2E is a pair (v;w) where v 2V and w 2V. ormallyF, E V V, the Cartesian product of V with itself. Edges are also called arcs . De nition 2.

2.1 Ideals, Varieties and Finite Fields De nition 2.1.1. A monoid is a set M with an associative binary operation \ " and an element e2G, such that, for all a2G, ea a. We use (M;;e) to denote a monoid de ned as such, and often use M only when no ambiguity arises. This tuple notation also applies for groups, rings and elds. De nition 2.1.2.

p p TA, since A A p IAfor any ideal of de nition I: \ " holds since any element of Iis topologically nilpotent, and \ " holds since A p IA[Con14, Rem. 8.4.3]. See Figure2. A I a a n Figure 2. p A A p IAfor any ideal of de nition I. Thus, choosing I A Amakes Spv(A;I) detect the to