ATDTDA (13): Reef's dead, 362-364

[Paul Mackin]

On Jul 18, 2007, at 8:55 AM, mikebailey at speakeasy.net wrote:

> Paul Nightingale
>
>> Cf. ". if these plutes were undeniably
>> evil hombres, then how much more so were those who took care of their
>> problems for them, in no matter what ignorance of why, not all of  
>> their
>> faces on the wanted bills ." (362).
>
> this was the sentence that James Wood looked at...
> it veers off - imho - away from strict grammatical sense
> at the point of "not all of their faces..."
>
> doesn't it?  we're okay up thru "in no matter what ignorance
> of why" --
>             the plutes are evil
>
>             those who do they bidding even more so
>            (framed questioningly - as if in wonderment - or Wobbly  
> rhetoric
>              like, here's something you may not have considered)
>
>            whether they know why (ie why they are offered jobs
>            enabling class oppression) doesn't affect
>            the fact of their guilt
>
>        but, then "not all of their faces" -
>        1) on the wanted bills?  these guys are the sheriffs &  
> enforcers
>                so their faces wouldn't be on the wanted bills
>        2) or are the ignorant minions gazing at the wanted bills
>                but what is it that all the faces are not doing?
>
>               - I can't find a clear antecedent before the
>               "not all" for any of the thoughts thereafter
>
> and I don't think Pynchon is trailing off because unable
> or unwilling to complete his thought, or having been beguiled
> by some "fine writing" out of making sense.
> It's not like the man to do that...
> However, can't claim I know exactly what's going on here.
> Other than it strikes me as a very bizarre sentence (the weirdest
> bit to come to my attention since the pearl message)


Don't you think it's Pynchon's intention to portray Reef's thought  
processes as pretty muddled?


>
>