Phantomogenic Ekphrasis: Traumatizing Images in Michael Cunningham’s Specimen Days and Don DeLillo’s Falling Man

Falling Man
{"title":"Phantomogenic Ekphrasis: Traumatizing Images in Michael Cunningham’s Specimen Days and Don DeLillo’s Falling Man","authors":"Falling Man","doi":"10.1515/9783110693959-006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The distressing sight of people jumping or falling out of the World Trade Center has become an integral part of our collective imaginary of 9/11. Photographs capturing their jump and subsequent fall into the abyss have burned into our memories. Although such traumatizing images were quickly taken out of circulation in print media, they have had a long afterlife on the Internet and in the arts. In the realm of literature, a number of texts, especially novels, have addressed 9/11’s falling bodies, or “jumpers,” as they were also called: Art Spiegelman’s In the Shadow of No Towers (2004), Frédéric Beigbeder’s Windows on the World (2004), Jonathan Safran Foer’s Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (2005), and Don DeLillo’s Falling Man (2007) are perhaps the best-known. Michael Cunningham’s Specimen Days (2005), although rarely discussed as a 9/11 novel, and even less so in relation to the falling bodies, also evokes images of the falling people, albeit differently from these novels. This chapter compares Cunningham’s and DeLillo’s novels on the basis of the techniques they employ to represent images of the 9/11 jumpers. The notion of ekphrasis will serve as a lens through which to compare the two novels. An ancient rhetorical tool for describing visual images through words, ekphrasis has been defined and applied in a variety of ways (Hagstrum 1958; Krieger 1967; Heffernan 1993; Wagner 1996). Most significantly for my purposes in this chapter, W. J. T. Mitchell (1994) distinguishes three moments of ekphrasis: indifference, hope, and fear, each of which describes the writer’s emotional disposition towards the image/text dialectic. After discussing the problematic relationship between image and text in relation to photographs of the jumpers, I use Mitchell’s terminology to look at ekphrasis as a means of verbalizing terrorizing images. Subsequently, I introduce the term “phantomogenic ekphrasis” to examine how Specimen Days and Falling Man approximate images of the 9/11 jumpers.","PeriodicalId":420435,"journal":{"name":"Terrorizing Images","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Terrorizing Images","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110693959-006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The distressing sight of people jumping or falling out of the World Trade Center has become an integral part of our collective imaginary of 9/11. Photographs capturing their jump and subsequent fall into the abyss have burned into our memories. Although such traumatizing images were quickly taken out of circulation in print media, they have had a long afterlife on the Internet and in the arts. In the realm of literature, a number of texts, especially novels, have addressed 9/11’s falling bodies, or “jumpers,” as they were also called: Art Spiegelman’s In the Shadow of No Towers (2004), Frédéric Beigbeder’s Windows on the World (2004), Jonathan Safran Foer’s Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (2005), and Don DeLillo’s Falling Man (2007) are perhaps the best-known. Michael Cunningham’s Specimen Days (2005), although rarely discussed as a 9/11 novel, and even less so in relation to the falling bodies, also evokes images of the falling people, albeit differently from these novels. This chapter compares Cunningham’s and DeLillo’s novels on the basis of the techniques they employ to represent images of the 9/11 jumpers. The notion of ekphrasis will serve as a lens through which to compare the two novels. An ancient rhetorical tool for describing visual images through words, ekphrasis has been defined and applied in a variety of ways (Hagstrum 1958; Krieger 1967; Heffernan 1993; Wagner 1996). Most significantly for my purposes in this chapter, W. J. T. Mitchell (1994) distinguishes three moments of ekphrasis: indifference, hope, and fear, each of which describes the writer’s emotional disposition towards the image/text dialectic. After discussing the problematic relationship between image and text in relation to photographs of the jumpers, I use Mitchell’s terminology to look at ekphrasis as a means of verbalizing terrorizing images. Subsequently, I introduce the term “phantomogenic ekphrasis” to examine how Specimen Days and Falling Man approximate images of the 9/11 jumpers.
致幻用语:迈克尔·坎宁安的《标本日》和唐·德里罗的《坠落的人》中的创伤性形象
人们从世贸中心跳下或坠落的悲惨景象已经成为我们对9/11的集体想象的一个组成部分。拍摄他们跳跃和随后坠入深渊的照片深深烙在我们的记忆中。尽管这些令人心碎的图片很快就在印刷媒体上消失了,但它们在互联网和艺术领域却有很长一段时间的存在。在文学领域,许多文本,尤其是小说,都提到了911事件中坠落的尸体,或者他们也被称为“跳楼者”:阿特·斯皮格曼的《没有塔楼的阴影》(2004年),弗莱姆·格贝格的《世界之窗》(2004年),乔纳森·萨夫兰·福尔的《极响极近》(2005年),以及唐·德里罗的《坠落的人》(2007年)可能是最著名的。迈克尔·坎宁安(Michael Cunningham)的《标本日》(2005)虽然很少被当作9/11小说来讨论,更不用说与坠落的尸体有关了,但它也唤起了坠落的人的形象,尽管与这些小说不同。这一章比较了坎宁安和德里罗的小说,根据他们使用的技术来表现9/11跳楼者的形象。措辞的概念将作为一个透镜,通过它来比较这两部小说。作为一种通过文字描述视觉形象的古老修辞工具,短语已被定义并以各种方式应用(Hagstrum 1958;Krieger 1967;霍夫曼1993;瓦格纳1996)。对于我在本章的目的来说,最重要的是,W. J. T. Mitchell(1994)区分了三种用语:冷漠、希望和恐惧,每一种都描述了作家对图像/文本辩证法的情感倾向。在讨论了关于跳高者照片的图像和文本之间有问题的关系之后,我使用米切尔的术语来研究作为恐怖图像语言化手段的短语。随后,我引入了术语“幻生ekphrasis”来研究《标本日》和《坠落的人》如何近似于9/11跳伞者的图像。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信