"one's homeland"

[s~Z]

>>>Now he seems content enough to base his reading of the Foreword on what
is
not presented on the page, and adding in elements which Pynchon chose not to
add.<<<

Early in the essay, he even hints (again without saying as much) at the
events of September 2001 and the effect such events usually have on the
political outlook of a nation. An attack on one's own homeland can suddenly
transform peace activists into dangerous subversives in the minds of most
citizens. It was something Orwell witnessed during the Blitz, and something
we've witnessed over the past year and a half.

Knipfel does the same thing in his review:

"Early in the essay, he even hints (again without saying as much) at the
events of September 2001 and the effect such events usually have on the
political outlook of a nation. An attack on one's own homeland can suddenly
transform peace activists into dangerous subversives in the minds of most
citizens. It was something Orwell witnessed during the Blitz, and something
we've witnessed over the past year and a half."

He resorts to the word 'hints,' admits it isn't in the text '(again without
saying as much)' and changes 'bombs falling' to 'attack.' You cannot make
the 9/11 point and stick with Pynchon's wording.

Plus, even if you grant the 'homeland as allusion to 9/11' reading, no one
then demonstrates, by staying with Pynchon's words in the passage, what
point he is making with the allusion. The point, even granting the 9/11
allusion, isn't there. Pynchon foils a simplistic and obvious conclusion by
the way he wrote this passage. I may indeed misinterpret Paul N's readings,
but I thought this was his point in his reading of the passage. It is not
that one can rule out an allusion to 9/11, it is that (1) limiting the
passage to 9/11 and (2) discerning a clear conclusion about 9/11 and its
aftermath, are not specified in the text.