Foreword, when is a homeland not a homeland?

[s~Z]

>>>You said it. You want to pick and choose as to when "zero speculation"
applies. I'm saying it never does. In what follows below you seem to
want to have it both ways.<<<

I do want to have it both ways. Some material begs for speculation. Other
material does not.

>>>Of course not. Thanks for agreeing, however inadvertently.<<<

I'm only agreeing overtly. You're adding the inadvertent part and pretending
I'm with you in ways that I am not.

>>>No, I'm commenting on what you offer as a way to read a given passage,
which is not quite the same thing.<<<

In the given passage, I see no need to speculate that the word homeland
refers to 9/11 when the rest of the sentence uses non-9/11 imagery. You
don't like it that I prefer this, and are accusing me of candy-wrapper
reading. So be it.

>>>The problem is, you focus on that one part of one passage, a few lines
only. I've repeatedly said we should consider the function of that
passage in the whole, for example the way in which P. goes from Orwell's
writing to the contemporary world. I'm sure you could pick a few lines
from GR, quote them out of context, and say what's the deal.<<<

I think the focus has been too much on one word. The passage as a whole is
dealing with general dynamics during wartime among other things. 9/11 is
nothing new. Homeland is nothing new. Governmental control is nothing new.
America is getting a new taste of it and is revealing her nationalism even
in her dissent. It is always about us. Everything is about us.

>>> In fact, if "meaning" there = interpretation, then I would argue that
P's writing defies
interpretation. It's about the way we read and how we know, and that
makes his work especially appealing to the kind of critical approach I'm
interested in. But to include 9/11 as one possible allusion in a passage
of a few lines is not to pin the writing down and deny the qualities
that make it worth reading in the first place. <<<

And you have said that allusions don't have to be intended by the author, so
if a reader has an association for a given word it's fair game in your
approach.

>>>Finally, to s~Z personally: As I finish this post, I've just read "It's
About AMERICA + lots of exclamation marks". I hope you'll come down off
the ceiling and have the good grace to accept that what you've written
there isn't even a travesty (it's not that close) of the reading I've
offered here and elsewhere. Please get serious.<<<

That wasn't directed at you.