Difference between revisions of "Talk:ATD 149-170"
(→Page 153) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:I'll concede that it is arguable that it is not bin Laden, but there is textual evidence that it could be. First, the passage at the end of that paragraph refers to the image as "'this Our Protector,' who remained, guardedly, unnamed" This care to avoid naming the image suggests that there is a specific name that could (but must not) be attributed to it. If it is a specific image, the only other robed and sandalled figure I can think of would be Ghandi, which would make little sense. Furthermore,there are two other mentions of somehow venerating or making peace with the author of the Event.In the same sentence, the image is said to "make easier whatever turnings of heart might become necessary in striking a deal with the invader." On 154, the city puts up "propitiatory structures", "as demonstrations of Loyalty to the Destroyer" [[User:Foolishmortal|Foolishmortal]] 11:27, 9 January 2007 (PST) | :I'll concede that it is arguable that it is not bin Laden, but there is textual evidence that it could be. First, the passage at the end of that paragraph refers to the image as "'this Our Protector,' who remained, guardedly, unnamed" This care to avoid naming the image suggests that there is a specific name that could (but must not) be attributed to it. If it is a specific image, the only other robed and sandalled figure I can think of would be Ghandi, which would make little sense. Furthermore,there are two other mentions of somehow venerating or making peace with the author of the Event.In the same sentence, the image is said to "make easier whatever turnings of heart might become necessary in striking a deal with the invader." On 154, the city puts up "propitiatory structures", "as demonstrations of Loyalty to the Destroyer" [[User:Foolishmortal|Foolishmortal]] 11:27, 9 January 2007 (PST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Bin Laden seems like a stretch at first, but then it would seem equally a stretch that an author as historically- and politcally-minded as Pynchon <i>wouldn't</i> throw Bin Laden in somewhere. My guess is, it's not a one-to-one correspondence, but that certain "resonances" to Bin Laden (or other bearded figures in history, Ayatollah, for example) may be intentional. [[User:S-Fremin|S-Fremin]] 08:17, 20 January 2007 (PST) | ||
Revision as of 09:17, 20 January 2007
Page 153
Perhaps bin Laden?
- It strikes me as something more general, surreal, nonspecific... but maybe? Bleakhaus 19:54, 7 January 2007 (PST)
- There is no textual evidence for thinking this image is of bin Laden, even allegorically, I think. Yes, I think it is any general 'religious' type as passed down in history but turned into an 'arc-lit' iconic image... (anonymous?)
- I'll concede that it is arguable that it is not bin Laden, but there is textual evidence that it could be. First, the passage at the end of that paragraph refers to the image as "'this Our Protector,' who remained, guardedly, unnamed" This care to avoid naming the image suggests that there is a specific name that could (but must not) be attributed to it. If it is a specific image, the only other robed and sandalled figure I can think of would be Ghandi, which would make little sense. Furthermore,there are two other mentions of somehow venerating or making peace with the author of the Event.In the same sentence, the image is said to "make easier whatever turnings of heart might become necessary in striking a deal with the invader." On 154, the city puts up "propitiatory structures", "as demonstrations of Loyalty to the Destroyer" Foolishmortal 11:27, 9 January 2007 (PST)
- Bin Laden seems like a stretch at first, but then it would seem equally a stretch that an author as historically- and politcally-minded as Pynchon wouldn't throw Bin Laden in somewhere. My guess is, it's not a one-to-one correspondence, but that certain "resonances" to Bin Laden (or other bearded figures in history, Ayatollah, for example) may be intentional. S-Fremin 08:17, 20 January 2007 (PST)
