Re: AtD translation: in Time’s case

[Mark Kohut]

Maybe to "never' have been touched by time is to be not quite fully human.
A god, goddess.

On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 2:52 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
> >>
> >
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>