do we have any way of describing the event other than "surreal"? is "unreal" more correct in this circumstance? i know im as guilty as the next for using it but wouldnt surreal mean a move not merely to the the extraordinary but beyond to something entirely otherworldly and dreamlike. had the towers taken on organic characteristics and become elastic to avoid the planes that i think would have been surrealistic. than again, "unreal" doesnt quite seem to do justice to the cataclysmic visage. i bet the germans have a good word construct for that sense of dislocation.
I kept hearing "like a movie" from eye whitnesses interviews. Tom's advises his use of Surreal refered to the melting effect as building II disolving infront of us, he sighted an Ernst paiting series but Dali or Dibenedetto would do equilly well. I found it all too real and unable to pawn off on any fantastic reference. I looked for clues (ie the absence of a mushroom cloud would rule out nuclear weapons) to help sort out what we really were seeing. real-real
|
- dave 9-16-2001 7:12 pm
I kept hearing "like a movie" from eye whitnesses interviews. Tom's advises his use of Surreal refered to the melting effect as building II disolving infront of us, he sighted an Ernst paiting series but Dali or Dibenedetto would do equilly well. I found it all too real and unable to pawn off on any fantastic reference. I looked for clues (ie the absence of a mushroom cloud would rule out nuclear weapons) to help sort out what we really were seeing. real-real
- bill 9-17-2001 11:11 pm [add a comment]
- anonymous (guest) 9-03-2003 1:05 am [add a comment]