Re: AtD translation: in Time’s case

[David Morris]

OK.  No grand Time construct needed, but Dally’s observation does focus on
a lack of expected visual signs of aging, Time’s touch.  Those signs of
aging being absent spark her to speculate of Time’s imagined “case” on this
subject.  “Case” implying an argument or maybe a more absolute reason for
this quandary.

David Morris

On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 2:51 AM Michael Bailey <michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>