(Incidentally, on the "how hard is it?" theme, it wasn't until today that I noticed that the diagram is yesterday's posting was wrong. Nobody else seems to have noticed it either. Hopefully it's now corect...)
As far as I can see there's no source acknowledgement even.
There's no mention of the cover photo within the permissions section, acknowledgements nor on the copyright information page that comes just before the contents.
Although I like the picture a lot it looks staged to me. Aside from the rather unlikely prospect of both players moving at the same time, the Black v White symbolism seems a little too neat to be true. I'm also not convinced the warders would allow a chess set to clutter up their nice neat corridor.
4 comments:
Does the book identify the photo, beyond acknowledging the source?
(Incidentally, on the "how hard is it?" theme, it wasn't until today that I noticed that the diagram is yesterday's posting was wrong. Nobody else seems to have noticed it either. Hopefully it's now corect...)
As far as I can see there's no source acknowledgement even.
There's no mention of the cover photo within the permissions section, acknowledgements nor on the copyright information page that comes just before the contents.
Although I like the picture a lot it looks staged to me. Aside from the rather unlikely prospect of both players moving at the same time, the Black v White symbolism seems a little too neat to be true. I'm also not convinced the warders would allow a chess set to clutter up their nice neat corridor.
Even if it's staged it would be unusual for there to be no acknowledgment. How odd.
I agree, it does look iffy to me. But it reckons here it's Attica (presumably of massacre fame).
Possibly worth investigating, that.
I like the way I misspelled "correct" above.
Post a Comment