On the other hand I was shocked to see Rieff bring up such an idea when the horrible event only happened ten years ago. Although I agree with Rieff’s idea, I do believe it is too early to even mention it. It is only ten years old, and the people affected by it are still coping with it. I understand that people who have similar experiences to Oskar will find such an idea impossible. For example this event has shaped Oskar’s whole life. He was only 9 when his father died, and it has greatly altered his childhood. He is so obsessed with his father that he is willing to travel around New York City, just to find who the owner is to they key. You just can’t expect someone like Oskar to just forget about such a life changing event or even come to the realization of something like this is possible.
Something I noticed in the picture attached in Rieff’s work is that it has a double meaning. It represents the formation of the 9/11 Memorial. The progress of the project is visible as the towers get higher. But it can also represent the fading memory of the event. It could be as if the memorial is slowly fading away.
A question came up in my mind. While I was reading Bloomberg Businessweek, there was a table of Top Costliest Diasters since 1970 and The Top 10 Deadliest Diasters Since 1970, I noticed how 9/11 only showed up once as fourth most costliest disaster. There have been far costlier and deadlier disasters like the 2011 earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster of Japan; the 2010 earthquake in Haiti; and the 1970 cyclone in Bangladesh. So why do certain disasters like 9/11 receive more attention than other disasters?