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.