TRTR 2, 1 - nit picky stuff about an evocative sentence

[Paul Mackin]

On 7/13/2011 4:54 AM, Michael Bailey wrote:
> page 323, poor Stanley:
>
> His work, always unfinished, was like the commission from a prince in
> the Middle Ages, the prince who ordered his tomb, and then busied the
> artist continually with a succession of fireplaces and doorways, the
> litter of this life, while the tomb remained unfinished.
>
> so far, so good, right?  but I'm having trouble parsing the next one:
>
> Nor for Stanley, was this massive piece of music which he worked at
> when he could, building the tomb he knew it to be, as every piece of
> created work is the tomb of its creator: thus he could not leave it
> finished haphazard as he saw work left on all sides of him.
>
> ---
> attempting to make sense of that.
>
> Nor for Stanley --- **nor** for Stanley?  where can you go from a
> "nor"?  not into "was this massive piece of music", can you? -- ie,
> this mpom wasn't for him either --what was the other thing that wasn't
> for him?
> not into "building the tomb" -- ie, Nor for Stanley building this tomb
> ... something?
>
> I guess the nor bothers me.  I'm expecting some kind of neither/nor
> balance or opposition, or some other thing it's the "nor" of...and I
> don't find it!
>
> it's not for him, like the medieval craftsman's tomb wasn't for the
> medieval craftsman...
> but the other stuff the MC did was also for the same patron; not for himself
> whereas the other stuff Stanley is doing is what? and for whom?
>
> with Pynchon, it's usually me missing it and I search and get it
> eventually.  But here, where is the "nor" going?
>
Neither for the artist of the Middle Ages nor for Stanley was their work 
ever finished.

Sort of awkwardly the "artist" is embedded in a sentence that is also 
principally about Stanley.

P