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?

"Gertrude Stein" (Pablo Picasso, 1906)