In Gibson’s case, the critique is embedded in the description of an avant-garde documentary film. He is describing a film in prose, in a novel, using the channel of writing (implicitly addressing all the erasures and rewritings of grammatology) to invoke an experience which is time-based and audio-visual. Nothing unusual in that. To describe an artifact made in one medium, within the structures and strictures of an entirely distinct medium is, after all, a fairly common procedure. Nonetheless it serves to indicate, pointedly, the strange power of all depiction, where it seeks to become, as it were, a metonymic structure, a short-hand for (real) experience, assumed to summon it into the mind of the reader, out of the pages of the oversentimentalized book.