¥7,272¥7,272 税込
ポイント: 73pt
(1%)
配送料 ¥495 6月16日-27日にお届け
発送元: ハウス オブ トレジャー 販売者: ハウス オブ トレジャー
¥7,272¥7,272 税込
ポイント: 73pt
(1%)
配送料 ¥495 6月16日-27日にお届け
発送元: ハウス オブ トレジャー
販売者: ハウス オブ トレジャー
¥1,199¥1,199 税込
ポイント: 12pt
(1%)
配送料 ¥420 7月4日-12日にお届け
発送元: The Amaz Store 販売者: The Amaz Store
¥1,199¥1,199 税込
ポイント: 12pt
(1%)
配送料 ¥420 7月4日-12日にお届け
発送元: The Amaz Store
販売者: The Amaz Store
無料のKindleアプリをダウンロードして、スマートフォン、タブレット、またはコンピューターで今すぐKindle本を読むことができます。Kindleデバイスは必要ありません。
ウェブ版Kindleなら、お使いのブラウザですぐにお読みいただけます。
携帯電話のカメラを使用する - 以下のコードをスキャンし、Kindleアプリをダウンロードしてください。
Fame: What the Classics Tell Us About Our Cult of Celebrity ペーパーバック – 2010/10/26
英語版
Tom Payne
(著)
{"desktop_buybox_group_1":[{"displayPrice":"¥7,272","priceAmount":7272.00,"currencySymbol":"¥","integerValue":"7,272","decimalSeparator":null,"fractionalValue":null,"symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"GpnhNDbp2SZdz6mp9WQOaDigXI1199ZWJvwOE4eBPLOPE%2FWnGjzxx6itBguHW4RJ6zLMD98pTcP88bIvbOvJ693OtjEAr5vF7%2B9uEMbj2UpewXhBN0x94Q6taLN8JmKq57zasXtBEfzn9HV60HO1irPVSvmLYM8Cai8H7qffDCWKsgKuaLuGZw%3D%3D","locale":"ja-JP","buyingOptionType":"NEW","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":0}, {"displayPrice":"¥1,199","priceAmount":1199.00,"currencySymbol":"¥","integerValue":"1,199","decimalSeparator":null,"fractionalValue":null,"symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"GpnhNDbp2SZdz6mp9WQOaDigXI1199ZW6VGWH%2B%2BhWgyTAwYVDFQ5Ph%2BgI9RBrYLqwpg3MqYYijC7sbFWEHfunn40Pwlpg35BJI6x2Eeb%2FMW9LxR9OEWEHvnT94lQGl9OpIvkSFRaM0K0d6V3wfREzuUCgR9g50R1kqzVmNhYK4VwMeQCRVqvrVofUopx09uh","locale":"ja-JP","buyingOptionType":"USED","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":1}]}
購入オプションとあわせ買い
We may regard celebrities as deities, but that does not mean we worship them with deference. From prehistory to the present, humanity has possessed a primal urge first to exalt the famous but then to cut them down (Michael Jackson, anyone?). Why do we treat the ones we love like burnt offerings in a ritual of human sacrifice? Perhaps because that is exactly what they are.
From Greek mythology to the stories of the Christian martyrs and Dr. Faustus, Payne makes the fascinating argument that our relationship to celebrity is perilous, and that we wouldn't have it any other way. He also shows that the people we choose as our heroes and villains throughout the ages says a lot about ourselvesand what it says is often quite frightening.Fame even brings new life to all the literary figures from our high school English classes. In these pages, the most ephemeral reality television stars (those "famous for being famous") find themselves in the same VIP lounge as the characters ofThe Iliad. With great wit, scholarship, and insight, Tom Payne draws the narratives of the past and the present into one intriguing story.
Fame is a dazzling, hilarious look at the mortals, and the immortalsus and them.
- 本の長さ288ページ
- 言語英語
- 出版社Picador
- 発売日2010/10/26
- 寸法13.97 x 1.91 x 20.32 cm
- ISBN-100312429932
- ISBN-13978-0312429935
商品の説明
著者について
Tom Payne read Classics at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. For four years he was deputy literary editor ofThe Daily Telegraph.
登録情報
- 出版社 : Picador (2010/10/26)
- 発売日 : 2010/10/26
- 言語 : 英語
- ペーパーバック : 288ページ
- ISBN-10 : 0312429932
- ISBN-13 : 978-0312429935
- 寸法 : 13.97 x 1.91 x 20.32 cm
- カスタマーレビュー:
著者について
著者をフォローして、新作のアップデートや改善されたおすすめを入手してください。
著者の本をもっと発見したり、よく似た著者を見つけたり、著者のブログを読んだりしましょう
他の国からのトップレビュー
dr george pollard
5つ星のうち5.0
A remarkably book, worthy of attention, as it ...
2017年11月17日にカナダでレビュー済みAmazonで購入
A remarkably book, worthy of attention, as it links modern notions of fame to long-established traditions. Who would think that the words of movie star, Greta Garbo, "I want to be let alone," would connect his anchorites or, even, Oedipus? A wealth of information and insight. dgp
P. Windridge
5つ星のうち4.0
Plus ca change..
2014年4月28日に英国でレビュー済みAmazonで購入
Payne playfully puts our "modern" celebrity culture in a historical context, focusing on the "build 'em up, tear them down" variety. Full of gems and touches many themes but wordy and rambling in places. The general message seems to be
* on an individual level people want attention and to be remembered (what, really?!), and
* as a society, we really really miss human sacrifice, public execution, gladiatorial fights, martyrdom, etc, and will accept any substitute!
No prior knowledge of the classics required, but perhaps not worth reading if you're not interested in such things..
* on an individual level people want attention and to be remembered (what, really?!), and
* as a society, we really really miss human sacrifice, public execution, gladiatorial fights, martyrdom, etc, and will accept any substitute!
No prior knowledge of the classics required, but perhaps not worth reading if you're not interested in such things..
Ellen W.
5つ星のうち3.0
Interesting, but a Bit Hard to Follow
2010年9月11日にアメリカ合衆国でレビュー済み
I took a course on Latin Satire in college, and though my high school translation skills were a bit rough by then, I enjoyed what I learned about Roman culture, and modern Western culture. I believe that people haven't really changed through the ages, and that there are a lot of parallels between past and present cultures. And while I don't really follow any celebrities myself, I think our "cult of celebrity" is interesting to study.
"Fame" seemed like a promising book, and it did have many interesting ideas. Payne presents arguments that we demand sacrifices of celebreties, that worshipping them makes us feel like a part of something, and that they represent us to ourselves. These are just a few of the points he makes. Some are better than others, of course, but on the whole, they're valid. The problem is the writing. Payne has a relaxed style, and it's pretty entertaining (though sometimes his jokes are a little lame). But what he's trying to say is not always clear. I often asked myself "Where is he going with this?" Sometimes it was a matter of reading a little further, but other times... It's not that his arguments were hard to understand, it's that his examples were too drawn out. It usually took him a while to get to the point, and I sometimes started to forget what the point was in the first place. Sometimes I was never entirely sure how the example related to the argument. Also, though this book was written for American audiences, there are a lot of British pop culture references. His favorite seems to be "Big Brother" contestant Jade Goody. This wasn't so much of a problem, because he explains exactly who she is. More problematic are references to people like Christy Linford. I gathered that he was an Olympic runner, but I had no idea what Payne was referring to when he mentioned "Linford's Lunchbox" (I later looked this up, however, and it's a pretty funny story).
"Fame" draws some interesting parallels between Roman and modern Western culture, and most of its arguments seem valid. However, it could use some editing. The arguments aren't presented in the cleareset way, and it's too long winded. These things make it a more difficult read than it should have been. It's worth a look for those interested in classics and anthropology, but be advised that it may take some patience to get through.
"Fame" seemed like a promising book, and it did have many interesting ideas. Payne presents arguments that we demand sacrifices of celebreties, that worshipping them makes us feel like a part of something, and that they represent us to ourselves. These are just a few of the points he makes. Some are better than others, of course, but on the whole, they're valid. The problem is the writing. Payne has a relaxed style, and it's pretty entertaining (though sometimes his jokes are a little lame). But what he's trying to say is not always clear. I often asked myself "Where is he going with this?" Sometimes it was a matter of reading a little further, but other times... It's not that his arguments were hard to understand, it's that his examples were too drawn out. It usually took him a while to get to the point, and I sometimes started to forget what the point was in the first place. Sometimes I was never entirely sure how the example related to the argument. Also, though this book was written for American audiences, there are a lot of British pop culture references. His favorite seems to be "Big Brother" contestant Jade Goody. This wasn't so much of a problem, because he explains exactly who she is. More problematic are references to people like Christy Linford. I gathered that he was an Olympic runner, but I had no idea what Payne was referring to when he mentioned "Linford's Lunchbox" (I later looked this up, however, and it's a pretty funny story).
"Fame" draws some interesting parallels between Roman and modern Western culture, and most of its arguments seem valid. However, it could use some editing. The arguments aren't presented in the cleareset way, and it's too long winded. These things make it a more difficult read than it should have been. It's worth a look for those interested in classics and anthropology, but be advised that it may take some patience to get through.
Jessica Weissman
5つ星のうち4.0
Fun if you know your classics and your pop culture, but somewhat scattered
2010年9月13日にアメリカ合衆国でレビュー済み
Tom Payne knows his classics - not just the ancients, but Goethe and Chaucer and Augustine, too. And he knows how to entertain while conveying knowledge. He's got a good sense of humor, and can write well. He displays his learning lightly. He brings in historical figures too - Marie Antoinette, Byron, and even Saddam Hussein - and relates their lives and reputations to the heroes of the Greek and Roman classics.
His main thesis seems to be that celebrity corresponds to the sacrifices of the ancients. We distinguish heroes or ordinary people, and we give them fame, and we push them off metaphorical or actual cliffs. Along the way, he describes the nature of fame accruing to celebrities ranging from Achilles to one Jade Goody - the latter known only in England, but he explains enough in the text that we non-Brits can figure it out. And if not, there's the Internet to consult.
There are some interesting observations, and some thought-provoking comparisons between the classical world and its culture and the modern world of Demi Moore. The description and analysis of the Roman habit of ostracizing the notorious/famous/politically active is interesting in the extreme and throws light on how we treat some of our more notorious politicians. But I'm not sure how accurately or completely it reflects the actual role of ostracism in Roman society and politics.
Still, the book was mildly disappointing. Many of the comparisons just don't work out, and many of Mr. Payne's observations don't really add up to much. Some of the chapter titles promise more than their chapters deliver. But it is a fun read nonetheless, if you get all or most of the references.
You probably haven't read this far if you're not already interested in the topic and not already equipped with some knowledge of the classics - or at least some nostalgic memory of your knowledge of the classics. Don't expect too much and you'll enjoy the read.
His main thesis seems to be that celebrity corresponds to the sacrifices of the ancients. We distinguish heroes or ordinary people, and we give them fame, and we push them off metaphorical or actual cliffs. Along the way, he describes the nature of fame accruing to celebrities ranging from Achilles to one Jade Goody - the latter known only in England, but he explains enough in the text that we non-Brits can figure it out. And if not, there's the Internet to consult.
There are some interesting observations, and some thought-provoking comparisons between the classical world and its culture and the modern world of Demi Moore. The description and analysis of the Roman habit of ostracizing the notorious/famous/politically active is interesting in the extreme and throws light on how we treat some of our more notorious politicians. But I'm not sure how accurately or completely it reflects the actual role of ostracism in Roman society and politics.
Still, the book was mildly disappointing. Many of the comparisons just don't work out, and many of Mr. Payne's observations don't really add up to much. Some of the chapter titles promise more than their chapters deliver. But it is a fun read nonetheless, if you get all or most of the references.
You probably haven't read this far if you're not already interested in the topic and not already equipped with some knowledge of the classics - or at least some nostalgic memory of your knowledge of the classics. Don't expect too much and you'll enjoy the read.
Kindle Customer
5つ星のうち2.0
horrible. made me mad.
2011年4月21日にアメリカ合衆国でレビュー済み
This book proposes to use the classics to inform us about our cult of celebrity, but really it's the opposite: this whole book, his entire argument, really boils down to one simple statement: Fame existed! Even in the past!
He didn't have anything new or interesting to say about our cult of celebrity, because that wasn't his goal. He just connects something in column A (modern fame) to something in column B (old-timey fame), and to be frank, he does it in a lazy way. He says, "As an actor, Kate Winslet is supposed to look like other people," as though he's stating a fact, and then moves on to make irritating pronouncements about all the times when she isn't ordinary enough. Sorry, but - since when is Kate Winslet ordinary? Or someone who looks like other people? The premise is laughable, and so are his conclusions.
Here's another real doozy: "As Anna Nicole Smith declined, didn't Pamela Anderson start looking more like Grace Kelly?" - What do you do with a sentence like that? No, Tom Payne, the answer to that question is NO.
At another point, further along in the book, he launches into a really long, involved discussion about the British Big Brother show. I don't know anything about American Big Brother, let alone British Big Brother, so this didn't make much sense to me - he assumes anyone who would read this book is thoroughly versed in pop cultural trash, that's his starting point - and then jumps right from his entirely British example to, "The principle of making people famous while booing them is now enshrined in the American way of life." It's not that I disagree - it's that he built up an argument about English television and then drew a conclusion about the American way of life, and didn't appear to notice that his example didn't apply.
There's another charming moment where he writes, "The more a politician trades on personality, the more intense our feelings are, either way. It might make us want them, but in the end, as it is with lovers who, in time, find the causes of attraction repellent, it's what makes us dump them." He supports this sweeping, grand generalization with a FOOTNOTE - yep, that's all he needs, one footnote - except that the footnote reads: "For example, the British might have applauded Churchill's defeat of the Nazis, but voters were alarmed when he claimed that the Labour Party would need to fall back on some form of gestapo if they were to turn the country to socialism." This footnote has NOTHING to do with his point! He talks about politicians trading on personality then cites an example where the population had a strong reaction to a policy statement? What?
Some of the things he says are just gross. He accuses Rembrandt of being a hound for fame, and uses Rembrandt's self-portraits as justification - but when Rembrandt was ACTUALLY striving for fame, when he was young and eager and he wanted attention and favor, he wasn't doing self-portraits. He was aping Rubens and the heroic royal style. Has this guy even LOOKED at Rembrandt's self-portraits? They're searing and naked and raw, calling them self-aggrandizing propaganda kind of makes me want to vomit.
Or what about, later, when he launches into a synopsis of Eddie Murphy's affair with Mel B, and then confidently declares that "fame-wise, Eddie Murphy is the winner." He is? Why? Oh, he "appeared in a music video, and was recognized as a stud for having sired his eighth child." Payne doesn't even try to make a comparison with how Mel B leveraged the baby (heaven forbid he justify any of his proclamations).
Reading this book was a lot like reading the transcript of a conversation at some really snobby cocktail party. It's an ill-considered hodge-podge of declarations and pontification and lazy thinking. Awful.
He didn't have anything new or interesting to say about our cult of celebrity, because that wasn't his goal. He just connects something in column A (modern fame) to something in column B (old-timey fame), and to be frank, he does it in a lazy way. He says, "As an actor, Kate Winslet is supposed to look like other people," as though he's stating a fact, and then moves on to make irritating pronouncements about all the times when she isn't ordinary enough. Sorry, but - since when is Kate Winslet ordinary? Or someone who looks like other people? The premise is laughable, and so are his conclusions.
Here's another real doozy: "As Anna Nicole Smith declined, didn't Pamela Anderson start looking more like Grace Kelly?" - What do you do with a sentence like that? No, Tom Payne, the answer to that question is NO.
At another point, further along in the book, he launches into a really long, involved discussion about the British Big Brother show. I don't know anything about American Big Brother, let alone British Big Brother, so this didn't make much sense to me - he assumes anyone who would read this book is thoroughly versed in pop cultural trash, that's his starting point - and then jumps right from his entirely British example to, "The principle of making people famous while booing them is now enshrined in the American way of life." It's not that I disagree - it's that he built up an argument about English television and then drew a conclusion about the American way of life, and didn't appear to notice that his example didn't apply.
There's another charming moment where he writes, "The more a politician trades on personality, the more intense our feelings are, either way. It might make us want them, but in the end, as it is with lovers who, in time, find the causes of attraction repellent, it's what makes us dump them." He supports this sweeping, grand generalization with a FOOTNOTE - yep, that's all he needs, one footnote - except that the footnote reads: "For example, the British might have applauded Churchill's defeat of the Nazis, but voters were alarmed when he claimed that the Labour Party would need to fall back on some form of gestapo if they were to turn the country to socialism." This footnote has NOTHING to do with his point! He talks about politicians trading on personality then cites an example where the population had a strong reaction to a policy statement? What?
Some of the things he says are just gross. He accuses Rembrandt of being a hound for fame, and uses Rembrandt's self-portraits as justification - but when Rembrandt was ACTUALLY striving for fame, when he was young and eager and he wanted attention and favor, he wasn't doing self-portraits. He was aping Rubens and the heroic royal style. Has this guy even LOOKED at Rembrandt's self-portraits? They're searing and naked and raw, calling them self-aggrandizing propaganda kind of makes me want to vomit.
Or what about, later, when he launches into a synopsis of Eddie Murphy's affair with Mel B, and then confidently declares that "fame-wise, Eddie Murphy is the winner." He is? Why? Oh, he "appeared in a music video, and was recognized as a stud for having sired his eighth child." Payne doesn't even try to make a comparison with how Mel B leveraged the baby (heaven forbid he justify any of his proclamations).
Reading this book was a lot like reading the transcript of a conversation at some really snobby cocktail party. It's an ill-considered hodge-podge of declarations and pontification and lazy thinking. Awful.