AtD translation: allowing herself to imagine

[David Morris]

You said:  She was imagining despite "the impossibility of ever belonging"

I said:  “[she was] allowing herself to imagine, [despite] almost [yet not]
surrendering to the impossibility of ever belonging”

In the second case she *does not* SURRENDER to the impossibility of ever
belonging.

There is a big difference.

David Morris

On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 3:02 AM Mike Jing <gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm not sure I understand, since that's exactly what I see implied. Maybe
> someone else can jump in and tell me if I'm completely off base here.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 9:57 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike,
>>
>> Your take *almost* works if you add the word “despite,” but that addition
>> would have to modify the word “almost.”  It also woks if you modify
>> “almost” with the following, possibly better implied, parentheses:
>>
>> allowing herself to imagine, almost •(but not)• surrendering to the impossibility
>> of ever belonging,
>>
>> The word “almost” thus implying having not having surrendered.
>>
>> David Morris
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 2:48 PM Mike Jing <gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> She was imagining despite "the impossibility of ever belonging". What
>>> she was imagining were "the offer never clearly stated, the hand never
>>> fully dealt", in other words, what might have been.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 6:09 AM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>