Lynn Redgrave passed away last night after a seven-year battle with breast cancer. Today I want to look at how internet news sources are covering the story.
This article from New York Magazine says, "Lynn Redgrave Dies at 67". The headline gives the main idea. Including her age is a nice hook - the reader wonders how she died so young.
Film.com uses this variation: "Actress Lynn Redgrave Dies At 67". Similar, but it also includes some exposition for those who aren't familiar with the story's main character, Lynn Redgrave.
The folks over at London Theatre Guide Online took this approach: "Lynn Redgrave dies of breast cancer at the age of 67". Well, see, now you've just spilled all the beans up front. There's nothing that makes me want to read the article. You've already told me the whole story.
And then there's this gem from the New York Times blog: "Lynn Redgrave, 67, is dead". There are so many things wrong with this short headline. I love it.
First of all, saying "is dead" is not very specific with respect to time. "Dies" or "has died" or even the overly-sensitive "passes away" all indicate that this event just happened. "Is dead" sounds like "Newsflash: Napoleon is dead".
It even sounds a little like we should be happy about it, as in "The Wicked Witch is dead". "Lynn Redgrave is dead - finally".
Also, inserting her age in there like that? It's like they're setting us up. Dead people no longer have ages. That's just accepted. We can talk about the age they were when they died, but only in the past tense ("He was 83"). The first part of the headline makes me expect this: "Lynn Redgrave, 67, climbs Mt. Everest". The real headline has a twist ending. It's like at the end of The Sixth Sense. We find out that Lynn Redgrave was dead all along.
The whole thing seems conceived to make us believe Lynn Redgrave is a zombie.
Dead or undead?
No comments:
Post a Comment