Vineland

[jbor at bigpond.com]

Why ignore the most likely explanation, that the interviewer repeats 
Frenesi's absolute to elicit further comments once Frenesi has stopped 
speaking. As interviewers invariably do (i.e., to keep the interview 
going).

There's absolutely nothing in the text to indicate that either 1, 2 or 
3 are relevant at this point. You can read anything into anything, of 
course, but why you'd want to is another thing entirely.

best

>> I think the "they" (both) in the last sentence has to be the owners of
>> the voices, i.e the "bought and sold" who are mouthing the "countless
>> lies" on the tv -- politicians primarily, I guess. They have sold out
>> on whatever integrity they once had ("whatever they had once been") by
>> the prospect of wealth and power (i.e. the "promises" by which they 
>> had
>> been "bought and sold"). However, Frenesi is saying that they will
>> "never get to collect" on those promises, because the revolution will
>> prevail ("too many of us are learning to pay attention"). (195)
>>
>> It's complex, but not altogether incomprehensible.

On 08/03/2006:

> so it's interesting that the interviewer breaks in to say "Never" at
> exactly that point; having followed the argument and realized that
> he/she may be holding some of those promises...
> this could mean so many things!
> 1) at this point the conventional media decided to turn against them
> 2) humor: picture the interviewer as Rommel ("Ach, mein Arsch!")
> 3) grim "oh we shall just see about that young lady: Never? 
> Nyah-hah-hah"
> are just a few of the things that come to mind