I have to ask you dear about the tan line on your ring finger

I remember feeling shocked the first time I saw ads projected in a subway tunnel, still images arranged so that they produced a moving image. When the El slowed, I got a look at just how many pictures of the Honda Accord were projected onto the wall: lots. I was reminded of this when I was walking up the jetway in Heathrow yesterday upon returning from Berlin. I saw an ad for marriage, I think, or an ad for a bank. Hard to be sure.

There's a particular kind of ad that always seems to appear in jetways, one which involves a repeated image with different captioning. So, for instance, sometime last year I saw these paired diptychs of side-by-side photos of a businessman and a rock star, with respective captions of "normal," "groundbreaking"; "groundbreaking," "normal." I think the ad was for a bank, so presumably they were more on the suit side of things. But advertising in a space like a subway tunnel or a jetway, where passengers are on their journey from a to b, dreaming of buying a sandwich or finally getting to use the bathroom or maybe just idly wondering how long it will take to get into the city or whether they can remember where they've parked their car, seems often to capitalize on fantasies of reinvention. Walking off the plane into Heathrow, behind a French man who looked like Prince but twice the size, who was wearing a gold leather jacket and a gigantic faux-diamond cuff, I passed three images of plastic figures of a bride and groom on top of a wedding cake with the captions: fear, fate, fairy tale. Sure, there are people who think these things about marriage -- probably a rare cross section who think that it's all three -- but because this was about financial managment, why the cake? But of course, marriage and money cross paths again and again. I was just watching this BBC program called "Who Do You Think You Are," which is a delightful mix of geek-out genealogy and celebrity gossip, because it traces the family lines of various stars (Jerry Springer; today, the character Mark from Peep Show). The highpoint of the episode was when Mark goes to visit a distant relative who's got a copy of Mark's great great grandfather's will, in which he writes his wife out of it because of her "intemperance." "I regret to say," he writes, "that to my beloved wife I can leave nothing." He goes on to catalogue her sins. But to get back to the image of the wedding cake as a way to convince weary travelers to use this bank instead of another: what is the idea there? That I'll have a kind of pavlovian response of either fear or fate or fairy tale, understand the multiplicity of views on marriage (much like the multiplicity of views on investing!), and figure out which term (which investment strategy) is right for me? I'm leaving out the other option, which is that I'll desperately want to eat the cake. I think that's the most likely.

Rebecca Mead and others have said earlier and better what I might on the topic, so I won't add anything, but I do think that the chroniclers of late capitalism (yes, that's you, FJ) should be rushing to their typewriters to ask why we're suddenly producing more and more powerful images of permanence at a moment when we're discovering that credit isn't a guarantee. Certain forms of the virtual are failing us, but at the same time we're holding on to them. I suppose what I mean is that I think the resurgence of the desire for stability (whether through marriage or through investment strategies) is about fictions of stability. And of course stability has always been accomplished through fictions, but these seem different.