Situationist Space Post

In "Situationalist Space," Thomas McDonough discusses the differences between Debord's map of The Naked City and the Plan de Paris. McDonough argues that the Plan de Paris uses the discourse of "description" meaning that the map represents the city by mapping out the whole city with all the streets and places whereas The Naked City is unconventional approach to a map. Deboard takes the Plan de Paris and devides it into 19 black and white pieces and links the pieces by directional arrows printed in red. The Naked City does not function as an ordinary map. It is more like a narrative rather than a tool of "universal knowledge." It names the parts of the city instead of the whole.
McDonough compares the Plan de Paris to the track of a locamotive because although a person is self-propelled their path is determined within strict boundaries by the map. I think that The Naked City was intended to give the people of Paris the feeling of freedom from the distinct paths they should take. McDonough also says that the Plan de Paris is in a timeless present because it's omnivous view is seen from nowhere. McDonough also feels that Debord was unconsciously reasserting the goals of a social geography, the inseperable space from the functioning society.
I feel that McDonough's main argument is that divisions in social class are not eliminated by the newly designed Paris that is shown in the Plan de Paris; they are only hidden. The poor are still poor even if they are able to afford clothes to look otherwise and the middle class are no richer than before. The Naked City brings these hidden distinctions and differences out into the open, "the violence of the fragmentation suggesting the real violence involved in constructing the city of the Plan." (McDonough, p.65)

Questions:

1. What does McDonough mean by structuring the Naked City through synecdoche and asyndeton disrupts the continuity of the Plan de Paris?

2. Why was little attention paid to The Naked City when now it is an iconic image?