Spirit and Identity

The interractions between whites and indians during the colonial period greatly influenced the lives of American Indians. We can see in Zitkala-Sa's narrative how whites tried to mold the indians to their ways. Moving east to get a white man's education, both Dawee and Zitkala-Sa left the safety of the familiar to go to an unknown place, filled with ideas of abundant apple trees. Zitkala-Sa soon realizes her mistake of leaving her family and feels "as frightened and bewildered as the captured young of a wild creature" (45). Although the palefaces try to greet her, their greetings are unfamiliar and it seems absurd to her that someone would treat her as a plaything (50). An essential idea in the indian culture is the concept of the spirit. Zitkala-Sa refers to her spirit in a few instances, tracing its way to non-existence. "And though my spirit tore itself in struggling for its lost freedom, all was useless" (52). Here she speaks of a torn spirit, but later she laments losing that spirit altogether. "Then I lost my spirit" (56). This spirit can also be thought of as identity. The indian culture nurtures individuality, while she finds that at the white's school the existence of "chains which tightly bound [her] individuality" (67). Zitkala-Sa feels that she has lost her place in life. "Even nature seemed to have no place for me. I was neither a wee girl nor a tall one; neither a wild Indian nor a tame one" (69). Is this loss of identity the reason why she has trouble going back to her family? Has the familiar become unfamiliar because she is not the same person she used to be? Does Zitkala-Sa find her spirit again? Does she find a familiar place, a home, in the world of the whites?

The Lives of Selves

Zitkala-Sa writes of her life story with a simpleness that almost hides the deeper meaning of her words. While reading about her care free attitude I was astounded at the sense of freedom she felt. Because she lived in such an open environment, or because she thought she lived in an environment in which there was no danger, she felt like she was not tethered to things. Despite the warnings of her mother to be wary of the "pale faces" she was still allowed to frolic with her friends.

The paragraph that struck me as a defining moment in this book is when she notices her shadow. She writes, "Before this peculiar experience I have no distinct memory of having recognized and vital bond between myself and my own shadow." This quote makes one think about what a shadow is. Is it a blurred part of yourself from which you can never be detached? Is her shadow a symbol of not truly being free? Could it be nature telling her that she is not as free as she thinks? Whatever one thinks it means it is a truly life-changing experience.

Zitkala-Sa (1898)

Studio portrait taken by well-known photographer Gertrude Kasebier, who also took studio portraits of members of Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show.

American Indian Stories-The Collective "I"

While reading American Indian Stories, I found it difficult accept this text as an autobiography. For one, this book is really a collection of stories from a variety of people's lives, not just one, all of which are told through the voice of the author. Thus, the book's classification as an autobiography is not only complicated by the fact that the stories do not portray the life of the author, but also by the fact that the "biographies" are mostly just pieces of a variety of lives. Additionally, there are parts of the book where the autobiographical "I" is completely missing and instead the story is told in the third person. For instance, consider the stories of "A Warrior's Daughter," "A Dream of Her Grandfather," or of the "Blue-Star Warrior." Within these, the lives of the protagonists are told as if from an outsider looking in.
After struggling with the classification of this book for a while, I came to the conclusion that this text could fit into the category of an autobiography if we view the autobiographical "I" into a collective "I". By telling the legends and stories of other people with similar struggles and backgrounds, Zitkala-Sa is able to portray her life as an Indian in the time of assimulation. While she may be an individual, she is also a person among people. The stories of others is her story because she identifies with the other Indians at the time. She sees bits of her life in others and in that way, the collection of stories can be thought of as her own.

Vanity

"Hereby, too, I shall indulge the Inclination so natural in old Men, to be talking of themselves and their own past Action, and I shall indulge it” (pg 3). Franklin begins his autobiography by stating that he has the reserved right of saying whatever it is he desires whether or not it be vain or selfish. He has done his merit, and the very fact that he is of old age has granted him the right to compose a work in which he salutes himself. He warns the reader, “since this may be read or not as any one pleases” (pg 3). Therefore, one has to accept the matter and realize that the reader has been noted. One can draw an existential sentiment in the text; he has created meaning his life and he writes in order to prove the latter. Similar to Stein’s writing, as the reader turns the page we seem to find out more and more about the people involved in his life. He notes his keen interest in the history of his own family, and throughout the first part of the work he brings the attention of the reader to the subject (family). At the same time, Franklin does not fail to mention his astute knowledge of writing. He makes sure that the reader understands that he was an exceptional student from an early age, but in a comical fashion he does consequently mentions that he was never an exceptional arithmetic student. Is it safe to say that the purpose of his autobiography is completely different than Stein’s? The connotation behind the language/text that Franklin uses does not come off as selfish or sneaky, but it is quite frankly filled with excerpts flourished with vain discourse. In my opinion, Franklin’s writing serves as an information pamphlet; Franklin literally tells us almost everything (to a tee) concerning his knowledge of the English language among other subjects. Could it be that he is merely paying respect to those who have taught him so well?

Why Franklin wrote his autobiography

When I started reading the new book, I was happy that finally someone admitted to the real reason for writing their autobiography - vanity (at least in Franklin's case). I felt that the authors of the previous two books we read tried to convince us (and maybe even themselves) that they we writing their stories for the readers. For example, Seaver mentioned in his introduction how people were really interested in Mary Jaminson's life and that's why he convinced her to tell her story. Her initial reaction left me with the imression that the only reason she agreed to do it was to share her story and to familiarize people with the Indians. Stein, on the other hand seemed to have written her autobiography because she wanted to relive her life, and maybe to sell the other books she wrote. Nobody ever mentioned vanity as the reason. My personal opinion is that anyone who decides to write the sotry of his/her life probably feels that he/she is a rather important and interesting person. That's why I really enjoyed reaidng Franlin's perspective: "And lastly, (I may as well confess it, since my Denial of it will be believ'd by no body) perhaps I shall a good deal gratify my own Vanity. Indeed I scarce ever heard or saw the introductory Words, Without Vanity I may say..."
I was a little disappointed later when I read the letters in the beginning of part two. It looked like Franklin was including them to justify the reasons for writing the book. So now I am not sure anymore, why did Franklin decide to write the second part - because of his readers, or out of vanity?

Franklin's purpose

I think that fact that Franklin writes his autobiography for his son makes this a completely unique book (to start).  He passes down crucial life lessons and advice with a certain sincerity and intimacy that cannot be recreated when writing for a broader audience.  Does anyone else agree that the intimacy he writes with is lost as the book progresses?

To me, the coolest part about Franklin is his modest, yet extremely dedicated, upbringing.  Before this, I couldn't imagine a Founding Father being so down to earth and able to relate to the average person.  Working in his father's shop was not good enough for him; he had bigger aspirations.  The obstacles he overcame to reach this idea of self-betterment were astounding.  His actions are a reminder to his son that you can always improve yourself and not to let anyone tell you that you can't. 

As perfectly shaped as Franklin's life seems, he admits to some faults along the way: "That Felicity, when I reflected on it, has induc'd me sometimes to say, that were it offer'd to my Choice, I should have no Objection to a Repetition of the same Life from its Beginning, only asking the Advantage Authors have in a second Edition to correct some Faults of the first" (p.3).  I think that the mention of his errors serves as a reminder to his son to not make the same mistakes he did (typical fatherly advice).  

Is the formal diction and ridiculous capitalization a symbol of his style or of the time period he lived in?

Sorry that post wasn't too focused...just trying to throw a few thoughts out there.

Franklin's identity

The blurb of the novel on the back cover starts, “ Famous as a scientist, statesman, philosopher, businessman, and civic leader, Benjamin Franklin was also one of the most powerful and controversial American writers of his time, and has been a subject of intense debate ever since.” Through his roles as a government leader, a prominent figure in American pre- and post-Revolutionary society and even a controversial writer, Franklin’s identity is laid out and defined for us. This is what he did, who he was, and how he can be classified in the history books. National folklore has portrayed him as an almost mythical character in American history. However, does this mythicism cloud the audience’s interpretation of other aspects that make up his identity, such as his personal life, relationships, and his everyday interactions?

Stein believed that the mundane aspects of daily life are as important in shaping an individual’s identity as the main, noteworthy accomplishments and events in their life. In this aspect, I agree with Stein and have enjoyed thus far the interactions in Franklin’s autobiography that bring him down from his pedestal to give him a more humane, relatable side. The example of his vegetarianism compels me the most; it is the one thing so far that has caught me off guard in the novel. Early in the novel (16), Franklin starts his habit of vegetarianism. However, when going hungry on a voyage back to Boston where the only sustenance was cooked fish, he is flexible. “I balanced some time between Principle & Inclination: till I recollected, that when the Fish were opened, I saw smaller Fish taken out of their stomachs: - Then, though I, if you eat one another, I don’t see why we mayn’t eat you” (35).

The impetus of hunger drove him to eat fish, and this basic human instinct gives him a universally relatable and more humane side. His justification to succumb to hunger is slightly humorous, and showcases his sharp analytical skills. The small anecdote of his vegetarianism (and stray from it) gives the audience a peek into a side of Ben not seen before. It could be seen positively, giving him a more humane side, or negatively, that he strayed from his basic principles and is not consistent. Do you think this anecdote demystifies Franklin from his mythical state in a positive or negative way, or a combination of the two? And how does this affect the balance of the mundane with the exciting events in his life that construct his identity?

Faith without works is dead

Page 88- Franklin references James 2: 15, 16.

"15 If a brother or a sister is in a nakes state and lacking the food sufficient for the day, 16 yet a certain one of you says to them: "Go in peace, keep warm and well fed," but you do not give them the necessitites for [their] body, of what benefit is it?"

James 2: 17 provides the meaning behind this illustration:

"17 Thus, too, faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself."

Do you think Franklin had this meaning in mind when he included this illustration? Is he taking the illustration out of context to give it a different meaning?

On Today's Discussion More Or Less

Being perfectly honest, I found today's discussion very odd; however, I did feel like the discussion points out very well the theory behind The Death of An Author.

For an entire class (or two), we have struggled to define the "author", "autobiography", and "text". We, as a class of less than twenty, struggle with seemingly basic definitions. Everyone came with theories: the idea of analysis, the idea of language, and ideas concerning the nature of the billboard. In the end, each person in the class had a unique definition based on a number of factors: our upbringing, our culture, and our knowledge of history up to that point. The definition of "text" became an amalgamation of seemingly random (or not so random) cultural and historical factors.

Therefore when we apply the idea to the author, how is a reader supposed to gain a real grasp of the author when we apply this previous train of thought to sentences, paragraphs, or the novel? When doing the rhetorical analysis of a particular work,
a rationalization of a paragraph may make perfect sense to us in 2008 but when applied to the time this book was written, could this interpretation even make sense? A deeper look into the intricacies of the work may only yield a tighter, more exhaustive grasp of our proposed "theory" about the book but nothing to reassure that our sense of the author is any clearer. The author is now a collection of institutions that influence him or herself in logical yet unpredictable ways and whose conflicts manifests in words that are perfectly unique to him or herself.

Knowing this, I feel like I should admit my own helplessness when trying to understand any author and acknowledge the ambiguity inherent in any work.

What is a Text

Text, according to the OED:

1. a. The wording of anything written or printed; the structure formed by the words in their order; the very words, phrases, and sentences as written.

But also:

4. c. fig. The theme or subject on which any one speaks; the starting-point of a discussion; a statement on which any one dilates.

According to Miriam-Webster:

8 a: something (as a story or movie) considered as an object to be examined, explicated, or deconstructed b: something likened to a text.

In order to best understand what is being debated, one must understand exactly what a word means. Incidentally, because the word "text" is so commonly used in linguistic analysis, it is often challenging to separate it from word-bound art. Even Miriam-Webster has a significant difficulty in defining a text (confining it to being story- or movie-like production). However, seeing as the word "text" is virtually synonymous with the word "theme" or the word "subject," one can safely assume anything can be a text (i.e. a topic). The one key aspect of a text, which someone said in class, is that it has to be scrutinized by a human. Rather, it has to be discussed by a human.
Taking all of this into account, I suppose that a text is defined first by its observation, and subsequently by the transmission of that observation. A person cannot discuss that of which he or she is unaware (thus necessitating observation). A person cannot express sentiments without an act of communication (thus, it becomes a topic).
A question: if a person is able to articulate a thought in his or her mind, but neglects to do so to the world, is the thought still a text?

Supplemental Read: Author(ization)

Shakespeare's Bootlegger, Dylan's Biographer

Autobiographies: Where does the story begin?

An autobiography is the story of one's own life, is it not? If this is the case, then shouldn't every autobiography begin with the person's birth, the start of the person's life? Is that not where the story begins? The answer to these latter questions appears to be no, at least according Franklin's autobiography. Rather than start off with his birth, Franklin takes time to describe to readers the type of family he was born into, his ancestry, the occupation of his relatives, and even the history of the name "Franklin." His birth itself is hardly emphasized, and we only get an idea of the beginning of his life because he gives us its relation to his uncle, who "died in 1702 Jan. 6 old Stile, just 4 years to a day before I was born" (p. 6).

I find this interesting not because this degree of background is unusual, but because it bring us back to the notions of identity. Is identity something that is inherent in us, or is it something we are born into? The elaborate description of Franklin's ancestry makes one consider that perhaps Franklin's (and our own) identity was shaped before birth. Why else share the stories of the person's who came before? Thus, is an autobiography a description of self, or a description of history and how you fit into it?

Recollections and Editions

"I should have no Objection to a Repetition of the same Life from its Beginning, only asking the Advantage Authors have in a second Edition to correct some Faults of the first. So would I if I might, besides corrg (?) the Faults, change some sinister Accidents & Events of it for others more favourable, but tho' this were deny'd, I should still accept the Offer. However, since such a Repetition is not to be expected, the Thing most like living one's Life over again, seems to be a Recollection of the Life; and to make that Recollection as durable as possible, the putting it down in Writing " (3). I found this quote incredibly intriguing. If the recollection of one's life is the closest thing to living one's life again, what happens if those recollections are faulty? Does it change the events in one's life? It is interesting that Franklin uses the idea of authors correcting errors in a second edition. If an autobiography is like a second edition of one's life, do those authors writing about their lives change events to have a more pleasing outcome? How do you know what is true and what has been edited? In Part One of Franklin's autobiography he enumerates many errors that he made during his life. By including these errors, the reader can more easily trust that what he is writing is truth. If the author's memory is incorrect (and we don't have a second voice to make the correction - i.e. Mary Jemison's misrecollection of events and Seaver's comments on them) then can it be said that the author is editing one's life, even if it is not on purpose? As imperfect beings, how can we trust someone's memory of their own life to be accurate and clear enough to write an autobiography?

Purpose of Writing

In the very first paragraph of this autobiography Benjamin Franklin writes "Now imagining it may be equally agreeable to you to know the Circumstances of my Life... I sit down to write them for you." After reading this quote I wondered if knowing the purpose for a book effects what I look for as I read. And in fact, I believe it did. As  continued reading I noticed on page 12 that Franklin admits that his writing style is more relaxed because he is writing to his son, and not so that the book can be read my others. 

We discussed in class the effects of knowing who the author is, but are there effects of knowing why the author is writing. Would the section about Franklin's child born out of wedlock be longer were he not writing to his son? Was Franklin more concerned with highlighting the areas of his life of which he was most proud of? Or perhaps because he was writing for his son Franklin was more open and honest than he might have been had he been writing his story solely to be published. 

All About the Benjamin

Motherhood

I will start out by saying that the fact that Mary Jemison was stripped from her family's care is the reason why she claims that parenthood is as satisfying as she deems it to be. Stemison states that "the time at which parents take the most satisfaction and comfort with their families is when their children are young, incapable of providing for their own wants" (123). Mary Jemison's innocence and adolescence was forced to end in such an extreme manner that her feelings were forced to become repressed. She kept everything inside, all of the pain and torture deep down inside; first of all she could not communicate with her captors, and at the same time she could not even express to herself the extent to which her life was being ruined. In chapter ten Mary admits to the reader, " [I am] happy-more so than commonly falls to the lot of parents, especially to women" (123). After having found some form of stability in her life in the aquisition of land, Mary feels that she is content with the way in which her life is. She is in no means in the perfect situation that is considered attainable in those times, but she does not feel 'lost'. Her life has changed in the sense that she lives for other people now. Her sons and daughters are what mean the most to her, and she will love them no matter what they do or become. At the same time it is interesting how lightly she takes the murder of one of her sons by the other; the narrative voice in this entire captivity account is questionable.

Stein v. Seaver

In comparing the last two [auto]biographies we have read, it is clear that there is an identity crisis with both narrators.  The use of multiple/combined perspectives serves separate purposes for each author.  Seaver uses his influence to excite and sell, while Gertrude Stein uses hers to defamiliarize and mock the typical autobiography.  Would Seaver's catering to the mainstream by accentuating Mary's more interesting life events be against Gertrude Stein's strong belief that life is not constituted by huge events but by the everyday, the mundane?  While "style" is the subject of Gertude Stein's book, "content" is the priority of Seaver's.  As a reader I question which is a more insightful reading experience.  Seaver's book certainly kept me awake but did it delve so deep into the self?  I ask you all, which book had more influence over you?

"What difference does it make who is speaking?"

I was trying to answer for myself this last question with which Focault left us. As someone who is being judged (and sometimes even graded :) ) based on what they say or write, I think it makes a big difference who is speaking. Especially in the modern world, where we hear/read/see so much information, we need to know who is behind those words in order to decide (that doesn't necessarily mean that we will make the right decision) whether to believe the statement or not. I'm much more likely to trust my physician than someone with no medical education about questions concerning my health. Of course, the fact that my physician told me something doesn't make it true (and I've regretted my trust many times) but it's the probability of it being true that keeps me following her advice. This applies more to everyday facts and science than to art. It's harder to qualify art as "true" and "false", or trustable and not. Also, if it makes no difference who is speaking, what is the difference between any two people? I feel like Focault took his theory a little bit too far ignoring things like education, character and individuality.

The Theory of the Work

Though this was really only a qualification in Foucalt's essay, the concept that a literary work has no definitive bounds is certainly an intriguing one.  Foucalt uses the example of the "notation of a meeting, or of an address, or a laundry list."  My initial reaction is that this view is intentionally naive; we may not be able to say without qualification that something is or is not a work, but we can probably go ahead and exclude notations of appointments or laundry lists.  This led me to try to imagine a definition of a work.  What I settled on, for a time, was that a work was text that the author intended as a work; that is, the author wrote it purposefully in pursuit of literary, informative, or commercial goals.  But this definition is flawed; we as a culture see relevance, see artistic merit, in all manner of private notations--many of Bob Dylan's so-called "speed ramblings," which at the time were nothing more than an outlet, ultimately were compiled into the literary work Tarantula.  This example also illustrates that an author's view of his/her text isn't static--what may be artless or irrelevant now may later be of distinct importance and as such warrant literary recognition.

So I'll pose another open question: how does one define a work?

The Chapter That Continues to Boggle My Mind

There is a certain dissonance between the last chapter (16) and the first 15 chapters that continues to confuse me thoroughly. How can a woman who says that "Indians must be Indians", who refuses to leave the community (more or less) who kidnapped her, and had children in that same community talk about her "reduction from a civilized to a savage state?"

Has Seaver simply hijacked the book to undermine Jemison's ultimate point that the Indians and their culture are truly civil and organized? Is their still a certain ambiguity with which Mary Jemison views her life? The first question is practically unanswerable although on a completely visceral level I feel like that this has a real chance of being right. The second question is one that deserves more analysis. One possible explanation for this "gap" may be her later acclimation into white society and then coming under what can pretty much be called an epiphany. Now being "able" to frame the narrative in the way most colonial settlers would, Jemison may now just view her life differently in the future than she did at the "present".

However, with this chapter, the idea of the author comes into question. Is this book when there is such cognitive dissonance between the last and first 15 chapters truly a narrative of the life of Mary Jemison? Should this book be rethought of as a collaborative effort between Seaver and Jemison to find a harmonious narrative that reconciles both the need to find common ground between these two uniquely different cultures as well as to create a thrilling, best-selling book? Perhaps this is the way that this book is best framed because the more I try to reconcile the incredibly contradictory thoughts of Jemison the more I confuse myself. Instead of narrowly focusing on Jemison and Seaver maybe I should focus on the social and cultural contexts that ultimately shaped this book and view Jemison and Seaver as cogs in the wheel of their cultures.

Who knows though? I'm still confused as evidenced by the rambling nature of this post.

Possible Disconnects between Jemison and Seaver

This is a topic we returned to frequently in class, but I'd like to solicit some explicit examples where someone thought that Seaver was willfully (or not, I suppose) misrepresenting Jemison's relation of a particular view or story.  For my part, I was dubious that such a phenomenon was occurring with any significance, but I did feel that the story of Ebenezer Allen could be such an example.  Simply put, the story doesn't make sense--Allen, to Jemison's knowledge, is a murderer, a thief, an opportunistic sadist who values human life about as much as he values women's rights.  Why then, does she defend him, not only through her actions, but in the way she speaks of his deeds, his remorse for his wrongdoings?  At the very least, her tone towards Allen is objective; for comparison's sake, she openly abhors her "cousin" George Jemison, who, while despicable, is nowhere near as diabolical as Allen.

It's difficult to imagine her sympathy for a character like Allen, thus I suspect that the Seaver has either exaggerated the degree of Allen's misdeeds or misunderstood Jemison's attitude toward him.  Anyone have other examples of similarly baffling stories?

Blood, guts, and morality

Jumping off of the class discussion today at the end of Narrative of the Life of Mary Jemison, I wanted to address in a little more detail the constant comparison between the Indian’s violent, bloodthirsty ways and their peaceful, kind lifestyle before this novel is completely put to rest. Mary describes many scenes of her quiet, happy life in the Seneca village, where they did not have much hard work and few things to worry about. On pages 85 and 97, for instance, Mary elaborates on the high “moral character” of the Indian people, among other virtues. However, throughout the novel, Mary (or Seaver?) often juxtaposes this idyllic view with those of lines upon lines of graphic scenes of blood, gore, and torture of whites at the hands of her “moral” Indians.

This brings into play the entire idea of morality, and its definition across cultures. Viewed from white culture, this torture of white people would be considered immoral and completely savage. However, viewed from Indian culture, since it was a warrior act committed during war time, it would be considered just revenge and justice in their society, and hence not immoral. So, through which moral code should this novel be viewed—through the eyes of white society or those of the Indians? Can either really be considered “moral”?

The Indians also have a unique system of handling prisoners where they give a family of a deceased warrior a prisoner (or scalp, if no live prisoners are available) to replace the family’s dead relative. The family makes the decision of exacting revenge (eye for an eye justice) or adopting (an eye for an eye only leads to more blindness), but either are acceptable and in accordance with the Indians justice system. Hence, both options are considered moral, yet one is very obviously crueler than the other. White society does not really have a similar, widespread infrastructure that allows for possible peaceful hybridization of the family unit and tolerance. The gap in the story concerning how white people treat and deal with Indian captives allows no comparison between the two. Ultimately, there needs to be more than a one-sided view for one to decide how they individually see morality in this novel.

Blood, guts, and morality

Jumping off of the class discussion today at the end of Narrative of the Life of Mary Jemison, I wanted to address in a little more detail the constant comparison between the Indian’s violent, bloodthirsty ways and their peaceful, kind lifestyle before this novel is completely put to rest. Mary describes many scenes of her quiet, happy life in the Seneca village, where they did not have much hard work and few things to worry about. On pages 85 and 97, for instance, Mary elaborates on the high “moral character” of the Indian people, among other virtues. However, throughout the novel, Mary (or Seaver?) often juxtaposes this idyllic view with those of lines upon lines of graphic scenes of blood, gore, and torture of whites at the hands of her “moral” Indians.

This brings into play the entire idea of morality, and its definition across cultures. Viewed from white culture, this torture of white people would be considered immoral and completely savage. However, viewed from Indian culture, since it was a warrior act committed during war time, it would be considered just revenge and justice in their society, and hence not immoral. So, through which moral code should this novel be viewed—through the eyes of white society or those of the Indians? Can either really be considered “moral”?

The Indians also have a unique system of handling prisoners where they give a family of a deceased warrior a prisoner (or scalp, if no live prisoners are available) to replace the family’s dead relative. The family makes the decision of exacting revenge (eye for an eye justice) or adopting (an eye for an eye only leads to more blindness), but either are acceptable and in accordance with the Indians justice system. Hence, both options are considered moral, yet one is very obviously crueler than the other. White society does not really have a similar, widespread infrastructure that allows for possible peaceful hybridization of the family unit and tolerance. The gap in the story concerning how white people treat and deal with Indian captives allows no comparison between the two. Ultimately, there needs to be more than a one-sided view for one to decide how they individually see morality in this novel.

Foucault's Pen

Foucault has a lot of really profound thought in his essay, so I know that it goes much deeper than my analysis. However, I feel that, because there is so much to expound upon, one must start somewhere, and that somewhere is with the author's control of the work.

Foucault begins his profundity first thing, giving the word "author" a certain amount of nobility in declaring its superiority. At first, this may seem a bit biased (he is, indeed, an author), but he continues with this motif, viewing writing almost as a sacred act at times. He does this by expressing the separation between an author and his or her work: "...[the author] is outside [his writing] and antecedes it" (p. 101). He proposes that the author essentially gives part of himself up in order to communicate his thoughts, and allows his ideas to escape into, "a space into which [his idea] constantly disappears" (102). Thus, the author not only pours out his personal thoughts and sacrifices a fraction of himself, but sets his idea free (this idea is not really mine, but Carlos Fuentes').

The reason this is so interesting is because even in our globalized day and age, any person can be an author, yet they still obey this logic. A blogger shares his or her ideas with the world knowing that anonymity is crucial to their openness. Their ideas are consumed without their person even being considered, per se. This empowerment is part of what introduced us to the information age.

Similarly, literary writers are able to do this as well. Samuel Clement used a pen name; Gertrude Stein wrote a fake autobiography for her partner. Both separated themselves from their personal thoughts and let the world devour them.

The last case is probably the most interesting: The Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison. Jemison herself releases her ideas to James Seaver to allow them to be free to the world. However, Seaver filtering through them means that he is intrinsically involved in their trasmission. Thus, just like we said in class, he gives the writing part of himself, synthesized with part of Jemison, making the product belong to both of them and neither of them.

Spirits

My question, while reading the last chapters of A Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison is where the spirits came from. The last chapters focus on the cruelty of the Indian life, especially dealing with Mary Jemison's family and those close to her. What is mentioned in almost all of these incidents is the consumption of spirits. Jemison notes that when she was first captured her life was more peaceful, perhaps because the Indians had not been exposed to alcohol, and the negative effects it can have. 

When seeing her two sons off to work she has to tell them not to drink whiskey. This section of the book really surprised me because Jemison talks a lot about health, and the food they eat, and why she herself has stayed to healthy. If the Indians had never been given spirits would they have continued to be a peaceful people living together? The book alludes to spirits killing the Indian tribe, and I am interested in knowing if that is indeed true.

Family

The majority of the novel is focused on Mary Jemison's family life. I believe this theme relates well to the idea of home. When Mary is granted liberty, she realizes that "if I should be so fortunate as to find my relatives, they would despise them, if not myself; and treat us as enemies" (120). Even though Mary and her children are blood-related to these people, they believe her children have been "contaminated" with Indian blood and therefore do not deserve the respect that a white family member would receive. The ideas of hypocrisy, deceit and anger play major roles in Mary Jemison's family life. Thomas is constantly nagging John for marrying more than one woman; however, Thomas has four wives himself! The anger that escalates in John becomes overwhelming and he kills his brother. This is not a usual occurence amongst family members, so it is important to analyze the situation to understand John's motives. Finally, the concept of deceit plays a role in the book when George Jemison claims that he is Mary's cousin. Not only does he lie about this relationship, he later tricks Mary out of a large amount of acreage on her land (145).

Moral Mesages

In all the cruelties and gruesome accounts described in A Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison, there also lies a prominent moral message that is carried throughout the book-be kind, dutiful, and accept life for what it is. These lessons appear in some form throughout the text. They are seen in the early lessons from Jemison's mother, who asked that her children "support our troubles without complaining" (p. 68), to the way Jemison handled herself in captivity (p. 71), in the chosen details about her children's character (p. 139), and even in the elaboration on the conflict between Thomas and John (p. 124-125). Overall, there seems to be the message that if you are a good, responsible, quiet person, then life will turn out alright in the end.

While this message is uplifting, the fact that it appears in an autobiography makes me question the extent to which this message is actually put forth by Jemison herself. I do not doubt that Mary Jemison was kind and hardworking; however, it seems unlikely that when revealing the incredible events of her life to Seaver that she would take time to interject this moral lesson. In considering ths presence of two voices in the text (Seaver's and Jemison's), it wouldn't surpose me that Seaver exerted his influence in this particular area to make these lessons of moral education more prominent. Since these morals were highly emphasized in American society at this time, he may have used this message to make the book more appealing to children and members of white society at the time of publication.

Live and Forget

After having read the first seven chapter of James Seaver's 'Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison' I came to realize the fact that Mary does not seem to remember or even know what happens to the people she meets throughout her lonesome, tragic, and horrendous early life. The narrative begins with Mary's confession on the fact that she does not know of her actual heritage/roots (where her parents were born). She later reveals that she has forgotten nearly all of her education and her religious teachings over the course of her life. She seems to be lost on why things are the way they are throughout the narrative. The most traumatic event in her discourse (up to chapter seven) comes when she parts from her family. At first she is unsure what is to happen to her family (although she later learns of their fate); it is clear that she is surrounded by a cloud of vagueness and inabsoluteness. She can only imagine the worst. At the same time she is forced to continue on "without complaining'; she has to hold on to the only possesion she has-her tragic life. Upon arriving at Fort Pitt, she loses her only other companions (the boy and the young man) and she admits that she never knew what happened to them. Once she is taken to the Shawanee town, she reveals that she never saw her captors ever again. Up to this point Mary's life is filled with inconsistency, and the only account in her life in which she actually spends some time is in her stay with the Shawanee Indians (about five years).

new book

Although the new book is more of a traditional autobiography which was constantly criticized by Gertrude Stein, there are some aspects of A Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison to take note of. First, the narrator admits the limits of her memory. The very first sentence of the story is in fact a quite modest statement that her "recollection is too imperfect." Next, the tone of the narrative is not self-indulgent but reserved and relatively modest. One of the criticisms Stein cast on traditional autobiographies was that they were written as though the authors are a whole being, having lived a life full of purposeful actions and events. Although the Narrative has chronologically linear structure, it resembles Stein's writings in that, as far as I have read, it is more of a listing of what the narrator remembers than a presentation of a complete life of apparant significance.

"Indians must and will be Indians..."

While I was reading the new book I was amazed how easily Mary was adapting to the new lifestyle. The Indians had killed her whole family and still she was able to overcome that and become one of them. That's why I was a little surprised by her statement that "Indians must and will be Indians..." (p.85) She claims that any attempt to "civilize" Indians would fail and that it's practically impossible for them to adopt another culture. I thought that was interesting because at the same time she had no problem adopting their culture. Was she implying that their traditions are "stronger" than hers? Was she right about that? A lot of years have passed since then but the Indians have really managed to preserve a big part of their heritage so maybe there is a little truth in what she said.

Jemison and Stein: Role Reversal

As I began A Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison, I realized I was still reading the text like it was Stein's. Old habits die hard; Stein's pseudo-fictional, symbolic meanderings are about as far from the concrete, chronological story of Jemison's life. However, as I continued to examine how different the two texts were, I suddenly realized that both texts are connected intrinsically through plot and emotion.

Stein's life was characterized by incessant globe trotting and deep pondering. She wrapped words around her experiences and placed them onto paper to portray her subtle emotions of wandering through disillusion to find peace. On the other hand, Jemison gave her concrete story of how she wandered literally in captivity in search of a way to settle down and make peace with her circumstances (70). She conjures up emotions in the reader not through artistic phrasing, but through raw experience. While Stein expresses mental anguish and has all the tranquility life can offer her (a maid, a partner, and a substantial amount of cash), Jemison finds emotional peace and control though she is jerked around from place to place. Furthermore, both are substantially discombobulated by the end of their lives. It is interesting how, regardless of circumstances, people must find a kind of anchor.

Finally, just an incredible coincidence: Jemison spent time around Alleghany (73)! I think that Stein and Jemison's role reversal and similarities almost prove reincarnation.

Through chapter 3

Through chapter 3, Mary has already experienced a great deal.  It seems she is still torn from white culture and Indian culture, stuck between the savage and the civilized.  While she's in this inbetween state, she bounces from yearning for home to loving the Indian life and her new Indian "sisters."  This brings up the idea of identity and the ability to reshape it.  When can you actually consider yourself part of a different culture?  Is there a certain time that must elapse, a certain event that must occur?  It is the same as the concept of maturity.  When do you become a man, a woman? 

To my surprise, the narrator revealed very little emotion when talking about the scalping of her family and the death of her newborn, but perhaps the influence of these events will resurface later on in the narrative.  Unlike the Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas, this seems to be a more traditional biography, full of dates, places, numbers, etc...the chronology also makes it a much easier read.  

Patriotism Revisited

While browsing the Blackboard, I happened upon a picture to make me rethink Stein's theory of country and culture. For Stein, culture isn't simply a definition: "the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc." Instead, for Stein, culture is an active and unique force that shapes the kind of person you are throughout your life. Stein throughout the book mentions the fact that she is uniquely American and that the spirit of America has had an impact on her life. In addition, Stein also cited that cubism was a movement that could only happen in Spain, the idea that only the Spanish culture was capable of enabling this distinct artistic movement. However, for Stein, the idea of culture as a distinct entity leaving an indelible impact on an individual is not exclusively positive. In one of the most surprising passages of the book, Stein provides what can be called a racist commentary on “negro” culture. To paraphrase, Stein calls the “negro” culture as one that is very “narrow” and one that suffers not from persecution but from “nothingness”. In terms of the Germans, Stein constantly refers to their entire population as one that is backwards. To me, for better or for worse, Stein seems to recognize that her own identity is one that is intrinsically linked to the idea of being “American”.

home

I know I already did an original post this week but I'm ready to move on and I found A Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison very interesting and, much to my relief, very easy to read. One of the prominent themes in the first seven chapters of the book is the idea of home. The book begins with a description of Mary's family and birth. In the first chapter Mary frequently speaks of the grief she was soon to feel when she would be separated from her family. Mary's first idea of home is with her family before she was taken prisoner and her family killed. It was interesting how the Indians tried to make their prisoners into Indians by changing their physical appearance. Although at the time of her adoption into a new Indian family Mary's heart was still attached to her previous family, she soon finds her place in the Indian village and, consequently, her new home. "With them was my home; my family was there, and there I had many friends to whom I was warmly attached in consideration of the favors, affection and freindship with which they had uniformly treated me, from the time of my adoption" (83). Mary is later allowed to return to the white civilization, but she refuses this offer and even risks her life to stay in the place she calls home. Mary knew that if she were to return, she could have a much easier life in terms of work and hardship. Despite this, she chose to live among her family and friends. I believe the idea of home can vary from person to person and also on the time in one's life. At this point in her life, Mary chooses to stay with her family in the village with her family. Later, when the oncoming winter threatens the recently pillaged village, Mary decides to take her children and escape to save themselves. Mary is able to leave others behind for the protection of her own family. Now that she has become a mother with many children to take care of, her home has become with them.

What did we come away with?

While picking up our new book for this class I am still puzzled with Gertrude Stein and our class discussion yesterday. What did she purposely leave from the book, and why? When I look back on this book I am left with small anecdotes of her day to day life and an overall feeling of puzzlement over autobiography as a genre. 

So what do we get from the book? What she wants us to know. I came away with a new appreciation for sentence structure. I can now read a sentence as a sentence, and not words strung together. I am also struck by the Marxist idea of commodity and how it relates to her sentences. It seems as though words are a commodity, but sentences are something that we should relate back to the author. As i was re-reading certain sections I came to realize that there was in fact labor behind this book, that this did not just fall from the sky written the way it was. Like an oil painting, you can see the processes that went into the production.

Stein: the same but different

We have discussed before in class citing Stein’s paradoxical phrases, especially the one in which she comments on how things are the same, but different. In chapter 6, Stein states,
“Another thing that interested us enormously was how different the camouflage of the French looked from the camouflage of the germans, and then once we came across some very very neat camouflage and it was american. The idea was the same but as after all it was different nationalities who did it the difference was inevitable” (187).
Stein comments on how the function of the camouflage was the same, but yet so different across the nationalities. She not only defamiliarizes the camouflage, but pulls in the ideas of nationalities we discussed in class. Stein groups people by countries, and it is no surprise that she always seems to end up speaking the most highly of the Americans.
In Stein’s lecture in Oxford, the idea of same but different surfaced again. A member of the audience jumped up to question Stein on that paradoxical statement she had incorporated in previous works. She explained it to him by juxtaposing the similar jumping up the member and his neighbor were both doing to ask questions to the differences between their personalities and respective questions (235). It is interesting that Stein made a conscious effort to address this statement, and give her Oxford audience and us an explanation.
As the paradox consistently appears in the novel, the theme same but different could possibly be applied to Stein’s overall message and being. Her autobiography is the same as traditional autobiographies in that it gives the story of a person’s life, but very different at the same time (i.e. her defamiliarization, autobiographical “I”, etc.). Pulling in our discussion of gaps yesterday, Stein could possibly be making a deeper statement about her relationship with Alice. She has the same (assumed) loving relationship as heterosexual couples, but it is an inherently different structure of a relationship as it is between two women. Possibly, Stein’s overarching notion of same but different is not only important to her story, but to what she tells us (and doesn’t tell us) about her life.

Mary Jemison/Deh-he-wa-mis

Stein and Questions of Reality

In class, we have questioned the definitions and distinctions for concepts such as identity, normal versus abnormal, familiar versus the unfamiliar, and the internal versus the external. However, there is one other distinction that I don’t think we have fully or directly addressed, that being the distinction between perception and reality.

In neuroscience, there is a phenomenon known as the blind spot. What this refers to is a small gap in our visual field, meaning we cannot get visual input from that area. The interesting thing about this is that although it is always present, we do not notice this gap in perception because our brain fills in with what it thinks should go there. Thus, in every moment, what we perceive to be reality is in fact false because we are not actually seeing what we think we are.

I think this discussion of perception and reality ties into Gertrude Stein well, and even into the topics that we have discussed before. The part that triggered this thought in me came when Stein, discussing her recent release of The Making of American, says “I knew it was a wonderful book in english, but it is even, well, I cannot say almost really more wonderful but just as wonderful in french” (p. 250). Reading this, it seems strange that the reality of one’s work is dependent on language. If one understands a book to be good, then it should be just that, wonderful and good. The idea that one person’s reality of a work can be influenced by perception and is dependent on the medium through which it is expressed undermines the whole notion of reality in the first place.

In addition to questioning our understanding of objects and descriptions, Stein leads us to questions the reality of everyday experience. For example, Stein admits to enjoying Fry and Lewis’ accounts of what was “exactly the same story only it was different, very different” (p. 123). Here, Stein illustrates that we all have our own perceptions of what has happened. But is our understanding reality? Can we ever really grasp what is real if we can only see things through our own experience?

Gender and mistaken identity

I know we have talked about gender in the sense of geniuses and their wives, but I felt that the notion of gender and mistaken identity played an important role in the final chapter of The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas. On page 195 Alice recounts an incident when Gertrude Stein sent manuscripts to the Atlantic monthly. When her publication request was denied, she wrote to a Miss Ellen Sedgwick when in fact it was Mr. Ellery Sedgwick. I was puzzled about Gertrude Stein's reaction to the matter: "Gertrude Stein of course was delighted with its being Ellery and not Ellen." I started thinking about how although Stein is a woman, she played the dominant, or male, role in their relationship and while Alice spent time with the wives, Stein spent a majority of her time with men. Although she did have good women friends, Stein's best friend was Pablo Picasso. With this in mind, I would interpret this sentence as an insight into Stein's preference for males over females.

Another example of gender and mistaken identity is found on page 201. I don't have any idea how to interpret it but it is a very interesting moment in the book. Speaking of a correspondence between herself and T. S. Eliot's secretary, Alice says:

"We each addressed the other as Sir, I signing myself A. B. Toklas and she signing initials. It was only considerably afterwards that I found out that his seretary was not a young man. I don't know whether she ever found out that I was not."

Any ideas?



There were a few places in the last chapter where I got confused, so I thought I'd put those questions out there and maybe someone can help me out.

The third full paragraph on page 210 this pretty much went completely over my head- talking about Picabia

Page 219- "He has a certain syrup but it does not pour." Huh?

Page 220- Rotarian?

Lonesomeness and Identity

After having explained to the reader that she was born in Allegheny, Pennsylvania (a city that does not exist anymore), Gertrude Stein remarks on her transition from living in California to Baltimore. She comments, "The last few years had been lonesome ones and had been passed in an agony of adolescence" (75). After having left California she began to 'lose her lonesomeness', but in her point of view the transition seemed strange (perhaps unwanted). She had lost her 'desperate inner life' and gained a cheerful one. Perhaps Gertrude Stein prefers the lonesome life she had, and perhaps she became too bored with the ‘abnormality’ of being around others. Gertrude Stein may prefer the moments in her life that are filled with agony and lonesomeness because of the fact that they bring about conflict, dilemma, and change (something o write about). Throughout her autobiography Gertrude Stein reveals that she lived a nomadic life, just as her writing appears to be nomadic in of itself (she constantly jumps from subject to subject without chronological order). When she comments on how english is her language, it becomes even more evident that Gertrude Stein prefers to be by herself. She objectifyes english and claims it for herself. She mentions, "[I] read everything and anything and even now hates to be disturbed ..." (74). She uses her 'english' to close the door to the rest of the world. Just as she prefers her eyes over her ears, she prefers to see for herself than to hear from others. Even though it is obvious that the people around her are the ones that influence her the most in her perceptions of the world, she casts this self-indulgent and superior (to others) personality. The people that Gertrude Stein appreciates the most are those that show congruency in their personalities with her own: ie. Doctor Mall who claims that 'nobody teaches anybody anything'. Gertrude Stein has taught herself her own truths and beliefs, and nobody can tell her otherwise.

Like  Sara, the discussion on the normal vs. abnormal really got to me.  I find Gertrude Stein to be an abnormal person, especially after hearing her unusual test taking technique and understanding her view on medical school.  Because Gertrude Stein considers herself normal, I can only conclude that she deems the rest of us, the mainstream, atypical.  How can such a unique and eccentric person be normal and the conventional be abnormal?  A second, subtler contradiction came to mind when pondering this one.  In reference to the long hours of staring at Gertrude for the completion of her portrait, Picasso says "I can't see you any longer when I look" (p.53).  If Gertrude Stein realizes that such repetition erases meaning, then why does her poking fun at the typical autobiography occur on nearly every page of her most commercially successful novel?  According to her own philosophy, that would ruin the "joke."  Since Gertrude Stein is clearly smarter (she is a genius...if none of you caught that the five times it was mentioned) than to contradict herself, there must be some explanation.  Does anyone have an idea of what that explanation could be?

When trying to answer this question all I could notice was the similarity between situations.  Apart, both sides of the arguments seem legitimate, but together there exists an incongruity.

The mirror phase theory by Jacques Lacan

I quoted the textbook, Practices of Looking, about the mirror phase of infants. There are actually some interesting points in this theory besides what I mentioned in class.

“In the mirror phase, Lacan proposed, infants begin to establish their egos through the process of looking at a mirror body image… [t]he infants recognize the mirror image to be both their selves and different. Although infants have no physical ability to grasp or control this mirror-image, it is thought that they fantasize having control and mastery over it…The mirror phase, as described by Lacan, is an important step in infants’ recognition of themselves as autonomous beings with the potential ability to control their worlds… The mirror phase thus provides infants with a sense of their existence as a separate body in relationship to another body, but it also provides a basis for alienation, since the process of image recognition involves a splitting between what they are physically capable of and what they see and imagine themselves to be. There are two contradictory relationships here to the image—infants see that they and the image are the same, yet at the same time they see the image as an ideal (not the same). Hence, the mirror phase is also about recognition and misrecognition.”

The autobiographies Stein is mocking by her book can be compared to the infant’s first sight of its reflection. Autobiographers write as though they are whole beings; they have an illusion of controlling their life and presenting as a finished story. In this sense, I think The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas is Stein’s attempt to reach into her own reflection, represented by Alice B. Toklas first, by giving into the fact that life is blurry, chaotic, and therefore impossible to be recollected and organized into a completed tale, and second, by giving the reflection (Toklas) a chance to look upon her rather than her one-sidedly defining the reflection.

Racism

We discussed this in class a good deal, but one salient point that I don't recall anyone raising in class was this: when discussing nationalities, she never capitalizes the proper adjective form.  Even when exhibiting what might be called racialist tendencies, she writes on page 125, "Gertrude Stein and spaniards are natural friends."  In more neutral moments, as when describing Kahnweiler on page 108, she persists in this habit, writing, "Kahnweiler was a german married to a frenchwoman and they had lived for many years in England."  This second example also shows how she doesn't hesitate to use capital letters when explicitly naming a country.

Now, at no point in time was this use of capital letters considered to be convention, and we can assume Stein is doing this intentionally.  It's not easy to say what exactly she means by it, however.  I will, for my part, submit that given her naturally occurring patriotism, she simply has a strong sense of national identities.  Thus, she feels it necessary to pay the deference to a given nation by capitalizing it when using it, but when describing someone's nationality, she merely views it as another part of one's identity, and does not see it fit for capitalization.  However, I'd be interested to see what other interpretations people have for this strange phenomenon.

Stein's Identity

This really is only tangentially related to the previous post, but the mention of Stein's patriotism reminded me of another aspect of the novel that I found to be particularly illuminating in view of Stein's identity.  On page 69, when discussing the circumstances of her birth, she writes, "and now [Allegheny, Pennsylvania, the place of her birth] no longer exists being all of it in Pittsburgh."  Stein goes on to say that she "used to delight in being born in Allegheny, Pennsylvania" because of "the pleasure of seeing the various french officials try to write, Allegheny, Pennsylvania."

This passage says a lot about Stein, and to me, sets forth a prevailing impression--a perpetual outsider, one who belongs nowhere but is a transplant wherever she is, not simply among places but among people as well.  She is not simply an American in a foreign land, be it Paris or Spain or London.  She is an American among Frenchmen, among Spaniards, among all manner of Europeans.  Furthermore, her work is well outside the realm of popular literature.  What's more, her taste in art, while ultimately receiving popular validation, is originally quite avant-garde and out of the ordinary.  All of which develop an impression of Gertrude Stein as an outsider in many regards, an impression with which I believe she would not disagree.

American Patriotism

Along the lines of what we were discussing in class yesterday, I find Gertrude Stein’s inherent patriotism intriguing.  Despite the fact that she has spent the vast majority of her life living in or visiting different places in Europe, she always considers herself completely American.  Though the people she interacts with are European, though she lives in Paris for most of her life, she never identifies with a different nationality.  She refuses to read French (p.144) or any other language and will only write in English (p.70).  Her longest novel is called The Making of Americans, not the making of Parisians or Europeans.  Moreover, she is extremely proud to be an American, constantly reminding those she spends time with of her nationality, despite living in a culture that views Americans as not the most sophisticated or appealing of people.

Tying this in to what we were discussing about not truly being able to see yourself because you are to close, perhaps she is only truly able to appreciate America because she does not live there.  By being separated from her homeland, only then is she truly able to appreciate its attributes.

Re: A Quote for Thought

Some of the assertions that Vu makes in the previous post, I believe, merit further discussion.  Regardless of what we may term to be Stein's disdain for the general nature of the traditional autobiographies, I think we still, by and large, would agree that the motivating force behind any autobiography, however avant-garde it may be, is quite simply to tell the story of one's life.  Stein does so in a way that is at various points incisive, tedious, and disorienting.  As Vu noted, the story does not progress in a linear form--it is a collection of anecdotes,  lacking chronological order (or rather, any sort of order at all).  More than that, though, these anecdotes, given their sheer number and occasionally shallow treatment, fail to help promulgate any particular theme.  We may dislike Stein's style, but it is probably shortsighted to think that she is incapable of writing a work that lacks a discernible direction.  What I propose, therefore, is that the lack of order may be precisely the point.  Stein views her life, and to some extent Toklas's as well, as without an underlying significance--it is simply her life, she lives it day by day, and there is nothing to suggest that any particular day should relate to any other one.  This, above all, may be the central schism between The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas and the traditional autobiography--whereas others ascribe a certain significance to their own lives, Stein sees nothing but an unbroken chain of unrelated events.

A Quote For Thought

Not limited to The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas, autobiographies, in general, require the ability to interpret both the present and the past as well as possibly the future. Taken from one of my favorite blogs, http://andrewsullivan.com, the quote is by George Orwell: "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle".

What was in front of Stein’s nose at the time she wrote her book was her own or Alice’s life. Gertrude Stein's views on life in general contradict the views purported by the restrictions of an autobiography that life is simply a linear process, one that occurs in a strictly chronological sense, and one that revolves mainly around one's self. Throughout the book, Stein uses a number of techniques that to one extent or another disorient the reader. The devices she employs, all of which seem to also annoy the reader, represent the intense struggle that one must go through when truly trying to represent one’s "self". To Stein, these techniques represent the confusing nature of life, and, although confusing, each of these devices is employed for a specific reason. For Stein, to "see" one's own life requires more than chronicling the "major" events you have lived through; instead, to Stein, life is an abstract entity full of twists, turns, and contradictions. It is through this seemingly confusing, digressive, and contradictory set of sentences that she portray the "true" nature of our lives. For example, the conversations one has throughout life are not well thought out sentences neatly separated by periods. Instead, it is a series of statements of various lengths that jump from one random moment to another that when put to a sheet of paper seem to make no sense. By employing a complex stream of consciousness style that digresses into every single direction, Stein seems to find a more casual, informal tone that is more indicative of our own lives as opposed to falling back to the easier, more traditional styles of the autobiography. Therefore, understanding our own lives involves not remembering the neatly separated, mutually exclusive, and important actions of our lives but all the digressions and seemingly inane paths we have taken in the effort to capture our own "essence". By taking part in this "constant struggle" when looking at our own lives, as Stein does in this "auto we may be able to gain a better sense of our own existence in general.

Possible traditionalist aspects

I wanted to jump off some of Casey’s comments about if Stein is really criticizing autobiographies. As we’ve discussed from background information during class, Gertrude Stein works to mock the traditional autobiography genre. The inherent confusion and layers surrounding an autobiography written about someone else that is, in fact, really Stein’s autobiography makes fun of the traditional “my life, my story” narratives. In one instance, the word “I” referring to Alice Toklas (who is supposedly narrating the story) was not used for the first 12 pages of chapter three. That is just one of the many instances where Stein very obviously strays from the mold on purpose to make a statement.

However, I have been noticing elements that appear very similar to the traditional structure of historized consciousness. Thus far in chapters 2-5, Stein has consistently slipped in multiple lines about creating either The Making of Americans or Three lives to see those as in the past and now history. Specifically pertaining to this work, Stein says, “It was the first time she really realized that some time she would have a biography” (45). This last line is especially intriguing. Stein is forecasting she will write the autobiography that she is then literally writing at that moment. She is looking back historically at the past, for her forecast will become history as she moves onto the next sentence. I think the basic idea is that Stein does represent herself with some historized consciousness, or going back to write the past with knowledge of the present. And as that historical view of oneself is indicative of the traditionalists, is Stein flirting with traditional aspects? If so, is she doing it consciously or unconsciously? If conscious, is she trying to further mock the traditional view? If unconscious, does that mean she may mock the traditional autobiography structure, but not the institution it represents (i.e. the desire to leave an indelible mark about your life in history)? Or are all these pointless questions, as Stein and every single person who ever writes an autobiography can not escape historized consciousness?

The normal and the abnormal; names

After Erica’s short lecture on Stein’s novel, I found it much more enjoyable to read these next few chapters. As I had mainly been focusing on the events and people being described, I was able to readjust my thinking and concentrate on the irregularities, or differences in her work compared to others. It was with this idea in mind that I came upon the paragraph talking about the normal and the abnormal. The narrator (Do we call her Alice because it is her voice or Gertrude Stein because it is really her words?) claims “She always says she dislikes the abnormal, it is so obvious. She says the normal is so much more simply complicated and interesting” (83). I found this puzzling because it has become my impression that Gertrude Stein does not do what is normal, especially when it comes to what society expects of her. Stein’s experience with education provides excellent examples of going against the grain. Page 79 discusses an examination where Stein simply wrote that she did not feel like taking an exam that day. (Wouldn’t it be nice to get the same results as she did? J ) Stein did not graduate from medical school because she was bored and did not want to continue taking classes. From these examples, I would conclude that Gertrude Stein does not like what is normal and does what she can to break away from it. I don’t believe these two ideas can co-exist. Does anyone have any ideas on that?
We talked in class about the use of names, how Gertrude Stein is always written as “Gertrude Stein” but everyone else is referred to by one name. A number of people are mentioned who have praised Stein‘s work and every now and then there is a person who does not like her work. I am curious about the differences between these two types of people. I got the sense that the people who praised her work were named and given personalities to back up the name while those who disliked her work might have been given a name but the effect is that the latter group of people are less “real” to the reader and hence a less reliable source.

Characters and Defamiliarization

Because of Stein's globe trotting lifestyle and gregarious disposition, the characters in her books are almost more important to the setting than the location. The people that surround her determine how she acts. "...I like you alright, but I don't like germans," is one of Stein's statements that show that people are crucial to her liking for a place (she asserts that she does not want to visit Germany during this conversation)(102). Interestingly, the need for a solid reference point for the reader is satisfied not through stagnant landscapes, but is directed towards an ever-changing flow of people. This ties in closely to Stein's theme of defamiliarization (dependence on a fluid foundation).

Approximately twice a page, Stein introduces a brand new character into the scene. Some of them are recurrent and important (Picasso), others are negligible (Miss Furr and Miss Skeen on p. 14). Unfortunately, the reader's main anchor is the character driven style of the writing! Thus, her detachment from places and her constant flow of acquaintances leave the reader discombobulated for most of the book.

Any thoughts on other aspects of characters Stein uses to frustrate the reader?

She writes of strangers and herself

While reading chapters 4 and 5 of AABT I came upon a short sentence that was actually a quote from The Making of Americans. The quote was "I write for myself and strangers." (70). After reading that I spent the rest of my reading trying to figure out who this book is for. Is it for Gertrude Stein? Part of me thinks so, especially because everyone introduced in the book seems to lead back to her. The characters are only important because of things they said about her or because of things she distinctly remembers about them. Or could the book be about strangers? Is she really criticizing the format in which autobiographies are written? 

Thoughts?

Gertrude Stein can be viewed as "cocky," or self indulgent, but I am amused and have great respect for her-what I view to be-un-checked confidence. She knows she is a genius and has realized other people share the same sentiment towards her. One part of her writing where I stopped to re-read and even chuckled at was when she spoke of editor Elliot Paul who said he, himself was certain that Gertrude Stein could be a best-seller in France, to which Gertrude Stein remarked, "It seems very likely that his prediction is to be fulfilled." pg.56. I am not sure if she viewed the matter the same way before she indeed became a best-seller in France, but after the time reading this novel, I believe she made that exact statement before her fame, or success in France occurred. I applaud her excellence and confidence.

Gertrude Stein-style

Hi everyone. I'm not much of a blogger so I apologize in advance if this post
is not where it should be. Also, I'm not sure if there is some sort of format
that I should follow, so for lack of any better ideas, I guess I will just dive
in.

While reading The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas, I noticed that Stein refers several times to the importance of sentences in her work. She writes that “sentences not only words but sentences and always sentences have been Gertrude Stein’s life long passion” (p. 41). The repetition of this idea leads me to believe that it is important, and I was wondering if anyone could think of the significance in valuing sentences over words.

To share my own opinion, I think that focusing on sentences emphasizes the importance in looking at Gertrude Stein’s work as a whole. If one is able to do this, then one can appreciate her ingenuity in using a style that proves itself to be crafty and illusive. Stein twists words around and neglects punctuation, which distorts the clarity of what she is saying. Yet, in spite of all its distortions, the meanings of the sentences are not lost. For instance, you may not be able to comprehend a sentence at first glance; however, if you take a moment and look back at the sentence as a whole, you are able to understand the meaning on a completely different level. Thus, that which at first was unclear is now made clear.

Although this game Stein seems to be playing can get frustrating after a while, I think it is also incredibly clever. Her style of writing and her use of those “long sentences which were to change the literary ideas of a great many people” really do make you challenge yourself to give everything a second glance, to read slower, and to open your mind (p. 57). I think Stein wants you to let go of convention and stop fretting over the minute aspects of literary work; otherwise, you may miss seeing the significance in a much larger issue.

So that is just what I am thinking. Does anyone else have any other opinions?