"fascistic disposition" paragraph

[Paul Mackin]

On Thu, 2003-05-15 at 08:21, Malignd wrote:
> <<I think you're being too generous. The argument that
> Pynchon would sacrifice clarity for poetry in making a
> reference to 9/11 is patently absurd.>>
> 
> I think you misunderstand. I'm conceding the point
> that your substitute might lack poetry not that
> Pynchon's referring specifically to 9/11.  
> Whatever poetry might be lacking in your substitute,
> what is actually there doesn't work poetically at all;
> it conjures images that don't fit.  No one's nightmare
> of 9/11 is likely to be of bombs falling.  
> 
> A large part of the terror of 9/11 and of terrorism in
> general is that legitimate air forces bearing loads of
> tactical bombs are not necessary.  Looking for them is
> likely to lead one to look in the wrong direction.
> 
> To read Pynchon as using falling bombs as a metaphor
> for terrorism is to grant him a rather ham-fisted
> poetics. 


One might just as well argue that "The Crying of Lot 49" was a rather
ham-fisted way of announcing that the CIA was responsible for the
assassination of President Kennedy. The fact of the matter is, Pynchon
is not always FREE to utilize his full  genius for haunting images in
the task of getting vitally important information to his truth-hungry
readers. Just how long do we suppose Pynchon might expect to stay alive
and free if government officials were easily able to detect dangerous
anti-Bush administration criticism in his wildly popular best selling
writing?

Thoughts to ponder.

Guess Who?