ATD SPOILER p. 93, 95

[kelber at mindspring.com]

I think this is where the Iceland spar imagery comes into play:  the double image of a bomber as 1) good-guy/anarachist/ freedom-fighter 2) terrorist/suicide bomber.  There's been a lot of hypocrisy recently about assuming that "we" have nothing in common with, are incapable of being, the second image; that it belongs solely to the twisted domain of radical Islam.  It seems obvious (OK, to me, anyway), that this is what Pynchon is driving at.

Laura

-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrew Pollock <ahpollock at gmail.com>
>Sent: Nov 28, 2006 4:52 PM
>To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>Subject: Re: ATD SPOILER p. 93, 95
>
>Please don't misunderstand, I agree about the centrality of terrorism
>and the power (and freedom) that TP gets from setting the novel as he
>does.  I'm nobody's constructionist in that regard, and as in most
>things, I think that kind of constructionism makes for bad readings.
>My only point is that WT's meditations on bombing are much different
>in flavor than the casual play of his son in that scene, and my
>reading is that they're purposely presented as such, to raise just the
>question I raised:  are you an ideologue, an uncaring nut, both?  That
>reading may not be borne out later in the text, but in the first
>section the differences seem more instructive and nuanced.
>
>Andrew