Print

Print


"Rickard A. Parker" wrote:
>
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> > P.S. More on _Achilles in Vietnam_: its bookjacket contains one of the
> > most frightening photographs I have ever seen.
>
> After that description I had to look for the picture.  Amazon.com has
> a rather large picture of the cover at the URL below.  The page also
> mentions that they have 47 sample pages online (many are probably in
> the full index though.)

And Robert Lord wrote earlier: "Does it matter that "The Diary of Anne
Frank" is an actual diary of an actual  young girl in an actual war? I
mean, it COULD be a fictional account, right?" The jacket photograph has
the composition one would expect more from a painting than a photograph
-- but I think a painting would have both similar _and_ a different
effect. Look at the soldier (in glasses) at the far left, reaching out a
hand (to restrain?) to touch the shoulder of the soldier bending forward
and reaching towards the wounded man. It would be impressive in a
painting, but still essential to it is that it has frozen for all time a
moment that "really happened." And while I haven't read Anne Frank's
diary, I suspect that some of its _fictive_ (made) force consists of the
fact that it was written _as those things were happening_. It's both the
actuality of the events narrated _and the fact that they were narrated
as they occurred_ that counts. Had Anne Frank survived and written an
account from memory, no matter how accurate that memory, it would have a
different force either from the diary or from a well-done fiction.

I think so anyhow.

A major fact about any photograph is that the _photographer was there_.
And no matter how the photograph is then retouched or even to some
extent faked, it remains inescapably "factual" in the sense of recording
the concurrence of photographer, camera, and object, and that is part of
its appearance.

Some movie reviewer made this point in a review of a movie (I forget how
long ago or its title) which involved incestuous relations between
mother and son: the reviewer claimed the existence of the early-teen
_actor_ in the original filming became part of the film. Independently
of the fiction there was a real woman and a real 13-year old boy
sexually touching each other.

Carrol