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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It seems that part of the pretension that comes with historicized consciousness is that it assumes that the events of the present are indeed significant enough to be history. Though she may partake in writing through a traditional method, she has a new, paradoxical stance: either everything is historicized consciousness or nothing is. That is, the collection of events in her life seem mundane (every mealtime, dinner party, etc. included for completeness sake), or all of the events are completely important to how she is viewed or views herself (perhaps the "Butterfly Effect"?). Rather than recalling only the unique events in her life, she includes all of them, and one way or another, she communicates that past biographers have never quite told a complete story.
Post a Comment