AtD translation: allowing herself to imagine

[Mike Jing]

I probably did not make myself as clear as I should. I certainly meant that
she did not surrender to the impossibility of ever belonging, at least not
completely.


On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 9:07 AM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>