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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
For me, the constant reference to other character is a satire of the self-aggrandizing nature of the autobiography. So focused on themselves, authors tend to forget that the world around them has just as much of an influence on their own lives as their own personalities do.
This is definitely an interesting point. The typical autobiography is composed of a series of chronological events, highlighting the various accomplishments of the writer. Stein, however, almost completely disregards time and her own accomplishments. While she mentions her writing fairly often, the majority of the other times she is mentioned are always focusing on some acquaintance or another. You rarely learn what Stein herself thinks, rather what this series of people think of Stein or each other. While it becomes confusing with so many people to keep track of, I find it interesting to receive so many opinions from very different people about the events of the novel.
It is apparent that Gertrude Stein's writing techniques seem to flurry the reader's ability to follow some of the material; she jumps from event to event whenever she pleases. Her attitude is that this is her autobiography and she is going to do what she wants with it. In terms of characters, she uses them to paint a clearer picture of herself in the 'eyes' of the reader. When Gertrude Stein reflects on her days at Radcliffe (and later on at John Hopkins) she makes it known who it is that she likes or dislikes. When writing about William James, it is clear how much she adores him, but when she refers to 'the professor' who almost flunked him (or even Marion Walker) she makes it known that she feels 'superior' to those characters.
Post a Comment