AtD translation: allowing herself to imagine

[David Morris]

The word “imagine,” here, doesn’t need an object. “Allowing herself to
imagine” can easily stand alone.

But “the offer never clearly stated, the hand never fully dealt" would not
be its object, if it had one. The “offer” would refer to something earlier
stated (or hinted at), which might be that imagine’s object.  That offer
might be “the (im)possibility of ever belonging,” but an impossibility is
the opposite of an offer, right?   But  “the brief revelation,” described
in the vision of the the many lights she’s just seen, might make sense as
“imagine’s” object.

David Morris
> > --

On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 2:54 AM Mike Jing <gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks, Joseph.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 8:36 AM Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>
> > I think that what you suggest  is the only logical way to read it if
> there
> > were a clear end to the sentence. To my thinking the ellipsis at the end
> > makes that assumption rather vague because those last three
> comma-separated
> > lines could be a further commentary on the whatever she does imagine.
> >   If so it becomes obvious that P intends to leave that object of the
> verb
> > unstated and perhaps impossible to get at, like so many of our longings
> and
> > thoughts.
> >
> > Secondary thought of no relevance to Mike Jing’s  practical question but
> > perhaps worth a bit of consideration) Soon after this passage Dally's
> > imagination and observation turn from the light of Venice which Hunter
> was
> > intrigued by, to the Venetian dark, the shadows; and it seems to this
> > reader her thoughts have more focus and clarity, seeing acts of violence
> > and abduction, as though these shadows are more real and consequential
> than
> > the inscrutable light, the paintable world that casts them.
> >
> > > On Jul 14, 2021, at 12:20 AM, Mike Jing <gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > P580.36-581.10   She wondered sometimes what he would have made of
> > American
> > > light. She had sat adrift in insomnia for hours watching fields of
> > windows
> > > lit and lampless, vulnerable flames and filaments by the thousands
> borne
> > > billowing as by waves of the sea, the broken rolling surfaces of the
> > great
> > > cities, allowing herself to imagine, almost surrendering to the
> > > impossibility of ever belonging, since childhood when she’d ridden with
> > > Merle past all those small, perfect towns, longed after the lights at
> > > creeksides and the lights defining the shapes of bridges over great
> > rivers,
> > > through church windows or trees in summer, casting shining parabolas
> down
> > > pale brick walls or haloed in bugs, lanterns on farm rigs, candles at
> > > windowpanes, each attached to a life running before and continuing on,
> > long
> > > after she and Merle and the wagon would have passed, and the mute land
> > > risen up once again to cancel the brief revelation, the offer never
> > clearly
> > > stated, the hand never fully dealt. . . .
> > >
> > > Here the object of "imagine" Is "the offer never clearly stated, the
> hand
> > > never fully dealt", is that correct?
> > > --
> > > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>