<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Is there, maybe, a missing word that has not been caught even in reprint.</SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">"Nor for Stanley, was this massive piece of of music [finished], which he worked on, etc.....</SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Or 'massive piece of music [ordered]..........to balance 'prince who ordered' above...???<VAR id=yui-ie-cursor></VAR></SPAN></div>
<div><BR></div>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif">
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif"><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV class=hr style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 5px 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; PADDING-TOP: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; HEIGHT: 0px" readonly="true" contenteditable="false"></DIV><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Paul Mackin <mackin.paul@verizon.net><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> Michael Bailey <michael.lee.bailey@gmail.com>; pynchon-l@waste.org<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Thursday, July 14, 2011 3:16 PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: TRTR 2, 1 - nit picky stuff about an evocative sentence<BR></FONT><BR>Maybe the comma is some attempt to indicate ellipsis.<BR><BR>The sentence has no proper predicate. Something has to be assumed from the previous sentence. That something is "there is no
possibility of completion."<BR><BR>Anyway, we might think of the sentence thus:<BR><BR>Nor for Stanley was (there any satisfactory way to complete) this massive piece of music which he worked at<BR>when he could, building the tomb he knew it to be, as every piece of<BR>created work is the tomb of its creator: thus he could not leave it<BR>finished haphazard as he saw work left on all sides of him.<BR><BR>Gaddis really needed an editor.<BR><BR>P<BR><BR><BR><BR>On 7/14/2011 1:08 PM, Michael Bailey wrote:<BR>>>> Nor for Stanley, was this massive piece of music which he worked at<BR>>>> when he could, building the tomb he knew it to be, as every piece of<BR>>>> created work is the tomb of its creator: thus he could not leave it<BR>>>> finished haphazard as he saw work left on all sides of him.<BR>><BR>> Paul Mackin suggested, and I concur:<BR>><BR>>> Neither for the artist of the Middle Ages nor for Stanley
was their work<BR>>> ever finished.<BR>>><BR>>> Sort of awkwardly the "artist" is embedded in a sentence that is also<BR>>> principally about Stanley.<BR>>><BR>>> P<BR>>><BR>> with that in mind, can I think that the comma after Stanley is used<BR>> artistically rather than grammatically? - to suggest a phrase like,<BR>> nor for Stanley either was this principal work ever accomplishable<BR>> amid the detritus of other tasks interposed...<BR>><BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV></DIV></div></body></html>