"fascistic disposition" paragraph

[Malignd]

<<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. >>

That's pretty much what I've been saying.

<<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?>>

I think you're begging the question.  On what basis
can you say that 9/11 is implied by Pynchon rather
than inferred by you?  Put another way, I think the
term "implicit reading" is oxymoronic.

In any case, there's nothing, I should think it
obvious, wrong with a writer being less than explicit,
assuming he isn't writing directions for a model kit.

That said, if one nevertheless insists that Pynchon is
using the image of bombs falling on London in WWII as
one meant to evoke similar images of New York on
September 11, I think he's being saddled with
authoring a crude parallel, with bad poetry.  


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com