"fascistic disposition" paragraph

[Terrance]

Malignd wrote:
> 
> <<Never having seen a bomb fall in my life it didn't
> remind me of bombs falling either.>>
> 
> Well, yes.
> 
> The context is whether "bombs falling" is, as some
> here claim, a clear indicator that P was writing, in
> the Intro, about 9/11.  The point was that September
> 11 will not be conjured in the minds of many by the
> images of bombs dropping.  No bombs were dropped.
> It's like suggesting a description of the devastation
> of a tidal wave is meant to evoke the blizzard of '88.
>  If one thinks, by contrast, of images of Pearl
> Harbor, it's all planes and bombs.

Of course. Bombs falling is not a clear indicator that P has written
about 9-11. 
Clearly, he has written about bombs falling on London. Bombs falling on
London is Explicit. What about what is not explicit but implicit? Is
implicit writing poor writing? Too open ended and vague? What is the
problem with an implicit reading other than the fact that it is not an
explicit one?