In a message dated 4/2/2004 8:57:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes: My complaint was about the purportedly representational images, such as those on TV, which purport to show you in an objective manner exactly what happened and how it happened. In fact these images, even when not censored or pre-selected or staged as they often are, only show a small piece of reality. These images serve the same function as religious or national symbols, serving to shield people from complexity. It's metonymy all the way. First some missile attacks presented as a fireworks show by satellite phone. Then 24/7 night-vision green images of tanks rolling toward Baghdad. Sand storms. Press briefing comic relief from Baghdad Bob. A few firefights in villages captured by distant cameras. Forces entering Baghdad. Then the statue of Saddam toppled. And again. And again. Some probably hoped the repeated image of the fall of Saddam's statue would suggest the Berlin Wall coming down, as if a gigantic statue of Stalin (Saddam's model) had landed face first in the dust. But other images, most of them angry or violent, soon contradicted that falling statue. If this was East Berlin, it was the wrong century, as if the people of East Berlin, glancing around at the western part of town, had hastily begun rebuilding the Berlin Wall. Now it's the bomb du jour, a small trail of smoke or a close-up on a burning car. Of course it's all propaganda, which is to say rhetoric, to use simple images to stand for anything. One can't see everything. Plus everything, if you saw it, would be boring. As anyone who's tried to write dialogue knows, transcribing what people actually say produces the most boring dialogue. One must choose and cut, choose and cut. Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html