Wednesday, April 02, 2003
Climax, Then Denouement
The current lead article at the New York Times concerns the start of the Baghdad phase of the war. It concludes with this paragraph:
But, early this morning, the focus was on Baghdad and Iraq's response. The Americans are gradually moving closer to the capital. The dangers are increasing, and the denouement of the war also appears closer at hand.Excuse me, but isn't the climax supposed to precede the denouement? I mean, I guess it makes sense in some kind of literal interpretation of "moving closer", but in that sense the very passage of time means that the denouement has moved closer?