Re: AtD translation: in Time’s case

[Michael Bailey]

Good point.  Didn’t need to personify Time really. The POV is Dally’s.

Thought I had divined the author’s intent; in the spirit of fun, may I try
again?

The comment does seem to be more a lighthearted flourish (an artifact
harmonious with Dally’s youth and imaginative playfulness, like the
material about dreams stored up in mattress springs in nearby pages, which
also hearken back to the wino’s mattress in CoL49, with sort of a more
optimistic take - like “Jarry”’s raspberry jam substitution later…is that
also a sidelong reference to Alfred Jarry?) than a brick in a philosophical
buttress about Time; as one of thousands of thoughts about Time in the
book, its proximate purpose is to limn the Principessa more than to advance
a theory, imho.

Maybe not so much personifying Time (which would verge past mere
capitalization and move toward further characterizing it - eg, “Father
Time”) as noting a unique attribute of Time in particular.

How about clarifying the distinction by saying most things or people or
effects would touch the Principessa Spongiatosta via one or more discrete
events, whereas Time is constantly there and always touching most of us?

So it isn’t enough to not touch. It has to “always not” (never) touch?


(TRP did already personify “Never”:

“The Kid got busted. And you know me, Slothrop. Remember? I’m Never.”

“You? Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?”)


On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 10:09 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> “Seemed” would be the perspective of something or someone other than Time
> *itself.*   But *maybe* Time (personified) would have a more absolute
> denial of having ever touched this dewdrop.
>
> David Morris
>
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 8:36 PM Michael Bailey <
> michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> P582.28-30   She was expecting an older woman with ruinous features, a
>> sort
>> of human palazzo. Instead here was this bright-eyed dewdrop whom Time
>> seemed not, or maybe, in Time’s case, never, to have touched.
>>
>> What's the remark "in Time’s case" trying to convey here?
>>
>>
>>
>> - “never” is the “not” of (personified) Time
>> --
>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>
>