"fascistic disposition" paragraph

[Terrance]

Malignd wrote:
> 
> <<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.

Yes, I know. I've read your whip marks on that horse. 

> 
> <<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.
> 


Is Subjectivism  encouraged by the impersonal techniques P employs? 

 The effort to avoid signs of explicit evaluation can be peculiarly
hazardous for the author who goes out of his way to keep himself out of
his work.