Plunder into oblivion

[jiho]

Hi all,
Would anybody please confirm the meaning of «plunder into oblivion» in the following sentence?

«Relevant parts of the manuscript were plundered into oblivion»

I understood it as kind of «erased forever»

Thanks a lot!

[IvanV]

I could use some more context.
But it's most likely to mean stolen, thus gone without a trace.

[jiho]

Thanks IvanV;

The text tells the editing process of a book by the author, he is the one who «plunders», so i didn`t think in the real meaning of «plunder»

Anyway, it means the author eliminated relevant parts of the manuscript, right?

Rgds

[Anglika]

Without more context, I think it means that he analysed the contents to an intense degree.

[tedtmc]

Relevant parts of the manuscript were plundered into oblivion

To plunder is to rob. 'Robbed into oblivion' sounds strange.
Why not just say:
Relevant parts of the manuscript were deleted/removed/expunged by the author.

not a teacher

[Raymott]

Thanks IvanV;

The text tells the editing process of a book by the author, he is the one who «plunders», so i didn`t think in the real meaning of «plunder»

Anyway, it means the author eliminated relevant parts of the manuscript, right?

Rgds

I doubt whether this refers to the author - much more likely an editor or sub-editor. An author can't plunder his own work. (Well, he could plunder his previous work to make a new one, but that's not the case here).
Of course it could be phrased as "Relevant parts of the manuscript were deleted/removed/expunged" as tedtmc says, but that removes the whole emotional and literary tone from the sentence.

[jiho]

I doubt whether this refers to the author - much more likely an editor or sub-editor. An author can't plunder his own work. (Well, he could plunder his previous work to make a new one, but that's not the case here).

I really think this was the case, the author is digging around in all his previous work and reissuing parts. There is no editor around, no publishing house in sight, just a man and his notes and his manuscript. Here is all the context I can provide:

«To a large extent he reworked existing material. Details from his earliest notebooks reappeared almost unchanged in the book, and relevant parts of the old manuscript were plundered into oblivion.»

Thank You so much to all of you.

[Raymott]

I really think this was the case, the author is digging around in all his previous work and reissuing parts. There is no editor around, no publishing house in sight, just a man and his notes and his manuscript. Here is all the context I can provide:

«To a large extent he reworked existing material. Details from his earliest notebooks reappeared almost unchaged in the book, and relevant parts of the old manuscript were plundered into oblivion.»

Thank You so much to all of you.

Ah, well, there you have it! It is someone else expressing disgust at what the author is doing to his own work.

[jiho]

Thank You, Raymott (and the rest)