In spite of Adonic/s dictum ofover forty years ago that to make art from the suffering of the Holocaust is barbarity, the event of the Holocaust can be and has been effectively represented. Even if Lawrence Langer had not pointed this fact out in 1976, the proliferation of novels, plays, films, and oilier representations of the event seems to have mooted Adorno's point altogether, though the fact of that proliferation also raises serious questions about the culture industry's prurience. But we wonder whether a more complicated and troubling facet of Aclorno's point has been missed altogether: while it is true that representations of the event, and scholarly work on those representations, have experienced something of a boom in the last decade, it is unclear to what extent those representations—and the academic industry that has grown up around them-provide a knowledge of the Shoah, and to what extent they provide (or perhaps better, present) something other than knowledge, something akin to a flash of horror that precedes and disturbs our ability to know, the barbarism that Adorno concludes must be the ultimate poetic object after Auschwitz...