Tragedy for the masses...

[rickus]

Reportlooking at one of Chris's links to a Slate article and off to the side was a link to:

The 9/11 Report—A graphic adaptation <-- link.

I don't know what to make of this. On the one hand I want to look at it. On the other it seems the last thing I want to see. These images are now iconic and conjure up thoughts not even related to the event, like Iraq. An unfortunate linking created by our festering elected officials.

But it seems the natural progression (for us in the west) in the digesting and processing of events. First we hear about it from news outlets, and then it's only a matter of time before it a best selling book, a made for TV movie and eventually product merchandising. Oh God can you imagine... An Marwan Al Shehhi action figure "Give your children the gift that says you remember. In stores now for this holiday season.". How is this book really any different?

Well I guess I've just convinced myself not to spend any more time considering this. Dose anyone else have any differing ideas?

[jtmx1]

I've been reading this on Slate. I thought of posting a link, but I didn't have anything interesting to say about it.

Anecdote: When I got my first PC here at STC, back when it was STCC, there was an interesting file on the harddrive that the IT folks forgot to erase. It was a collage of all the news footage from 9/11. It lasted about 10-15 minutes, and I am just sure that it was put together by the previous owner of the machine. When I watched it, I couldn't help but thinking about the difference between memorializing and fetishizing. For example, it's fine to put flowers on grandma's grave, but it's weird to worship her ghost. It's fine to remember the past, but it's impossible to live there. So the question becomes: How do we know when we've crossed the line between remembrance and unwholesome dwelling? It’s not at all clear. Most of the talk about living in a post-911 world is of the fetishistic variety, I’d say. Especially when we are saying things like, “Democrats are thinking pre-911”…well that just makes no sense to me as a statement. I suppose it means that they are being accused of not abandoning their old categories for understanding terrorism. But, of course, the new categories are nowhere on the table. Rather, all we have is demonstrably bad policies and lots of angry talk. We are all stuck with our pre-911 categories because no one knows how to deal with these new types of terrorism. In other words, 911 is used as a kind of religious appeal to an in-group. That’s fetishizing.

Other uses of the event are less clearly so. Chris had high praise for United 93, the film about that doomed flight. I watched a wonderful documentary on the National Geographic channel about how the attacks were organized ( www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BBS9QK/002-7584040-5496021?v=glance&n=130 ). Then there are the songs and poems written in the wake of 911. These seem to be almost universally horrible.

That’s about all I can say. I thought the Slate cartoon was interesting and (relatively) careful.