"one's homeland"

[s~Z]

It is telling how the rules of interpretation change, depending on the point
one is trying to make. When Doug was arguing a pacifist reading of the M&D
Dixon passage, the historical record was irrelevant. The fact that Pynchon
knows scholars will research Dixon's behavior, and learn that he was violent
to a slaveowner, was not seen as support for reading Dixon's fist as
violent. Now that so many want to see TRP as commenting on 9/11, the
historical context is supposedly of utmost import, without one undeniable
reference present in his words, at best there are allusions. I still say
Pynchon is a pro at disguising his opinions, or at holding seemingly
contradictory and complex opinions, which leads to everyone finding the
opinions they already have right there in the text. When they aren't. This
is no clearly obvious essay. The only thing clear and obvious is that some
people find it clear and obvious.