NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)

[Don Corathers]

The Vintage reads the same way.

I don't think it would be that unusual to hear "galleys [that] I had been
sent here" in conversational speech, but yes, it is an odd and awkward
construction for a writer as careful as Kinbote.

Re the sequence of events with the proof and corrections: James Kyllo (I
think) observed earlier today that it would be impossible for Kinbote to
have made a note on the proof in response to the publisher's request if the
request came in the same communication from Frank as the acknowledgement
that the proof had been returned. Which is certainly true. It is possible,
though, that there was more than one iteration of proof cycling between New
York and Utana. (On the magazine I work for, it usually takes us about five
sets of proof to get an article from edited manuscript to finished layout.)
Or that the poem, commentary, and foreword were galleyed separately. Or,
perhaps most probable, that Kinbote didn't write the instruction on the
proof itself but sent it in a separate note, which would explain why he had
to write out the instruction for its placement instead of indicating the
position by drawing a line, as one would do when marking up a galley.

Don Corathers



----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)


> In my copy there's a glaring grammatical error in the first sentence of
this
> paragraph as well. The sequence of sentences reads as follows:
>
>         Frank has acknowledged the safe return of the galleys I had been
>     sent here and has asked me to mention in my Preface -- and this I
>     willingly do -- that I alone am responsible for any mistakes in my
>     commentary. Insert before a professional. A professional proofreader
>     has carefully rechecked [...]
>
> Is the solecism of "the galleys I had been sent here" merely a
coincidental
> typo in the Penguin edition, or is it the standard?
>
> I think your first observation is correct. "Insert before a professional"
is
> Kinbote's instruction about where to insert the preceding sentence, the
note
> which "good old Frank", no doubt covering himself against responsibility
for
> the "mistakes" (a hilarious understatement) in Kinbote's commentary, has
> asked him to include.
>
> The process I see is that the manuscript went to Frank, the galleys were
> returned to Kinbote with Frank's request to add the disclaimer, Kinbote
> wrote the additional sentence and the direction as to where it should be
> inserted, the "professional proofreader" checked the text of the poem
(only,
> I think) in the galleys and found "trivial misprints" (which may or may
not
> have been "trivial", and which may or may not have been corrected by
> Kinbote), and then it all went back to the printer, who mistakenly
> incorporated Kinbote's direction along with the additional sentence.
>
> best
>
>
> on 15/7/03 2:01 AM, gumbo at fuse.net wrote:
>
> > Okay, I guess there are at least two ways to reconstruct how the "Insert
> > before a professional" interjection got in the text.
> >
> > My first thought was that it was a slightly garbled version of a
proofing note
> > to insert the word "professional" before the word "proofreader."
> >
> > It makes more sense as a note that was set in type by mistake at the
bottom of
> > the text insert, which is the preceding sentence: "Frank has
acknowledged the
> > safe return..."
> >
> > A much neater explanation. The inserted sentence is something that
_would_
> > have to be inserted, the product of a note from the publisher to the
editor
> > after a review of the galley proofs.
> >
> > My take on this is still that it shows there was a process of preparing
the
> > manuscript for publication under way. Seems to me the (fictional)
typesetter's
> > mistaken inclusion of the instruction is a pretty pointed indication
that
> > hands other than Kinbote's were at work on the project. (That is, that
the
> > poem and commentary have a reality outside of Kinbote's delusion.)
> >
> > Don Corathers
> >
> >
> >>
> >> From: The Great Quail <quail at libyrinth.com>
> >> Date: 2003/07/14 Mon AM 11:36:04 EDT
> >> To: The Whole Sick Crew <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> >> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
> >>
> >>> He says the poem has been proofed, if not the
> >>> commentary.
> >>>
> >>> And the very next sentence: "insert before a
> >>> professional."  Followed by "A professional ..."
> >>
> >> Yeah, I find this a very puzzling item, and it seems to be a "clue" to
> >> *something.* Did the proofreader who looked at the poem also look at
the
> >> foreword, but Kinbote, being rather in a tizzy, failed to note a
comment? Or
> >> is it a note by Kinbote to himself that was accidentally retained?
>
>