{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03009259259259259, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004629629629629629, 'mean_word_length': 5.268115942028985, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
REPRESENTATIONS OF LAWRENCE OF ARABIA

Edward Said’s short piece on T.E. Lawrence—“Lawrence of Arabia”—in Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient—has provoked some debate, though less than one might expect. This article takes a further look at Said’s argument. It suggests that in calling for a “new dialectic” in his discussion of Lawrence and the Arab Revolt—so recognizing the need of the contemporary orientalist not only to understand the Orient but also to participate in the process of change—and in introducing the concept of narrative as an alternative to the concept of vision, Said partly undermines his own position regarding orientalism. The article also looks further at Lowell Thomas’s contribution to the creation of the Lawrence myth, and at contrasting interpretations of the principal film version, David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia (1962).