Adsforblog

Saturday, August 15, 2015

Cooking with Tender Buttons Food: Roastbeef. Stanzas 4-8. Discussion 3


THE BOOK ..........................-           TENDER BUTTONS
THE SUBBOOK ...................-           FOOD
THE SUBPOEM ..................-            Roastbeef
WORD COUNT (Total)……..-           1757
STANZA(S)............................-           37
THE LEADER........................-           THE STEINY ROAD POET
CO-LLABORATORS.............-            MODPO STUDENTS/THE BUTTONS

Here are “Roastbeef.” stanzas 4 through 8 with a 345-word count. Among the topics addressed in this post are: Leo Stein’s departure from 27 rue de fleurus, food and sex, water birds and boat navigation, kind versus gender, from feeling to thinking, knowing versus no-ing, Steinian grammar, finding William Blake’s Tyger in the lovely snipe.

Considering the circumstances there is no occasion for a reduction, considering that there is no pealing there is no occasion for an obligation, considering that there is no outrage there is no necessity for any reparation, considering that there is no particle sodden there is no occasion for deliberation. Considering everything and which way the turn is tending, considering everything why is there no restraint, considering everything what makes the place settle and the plate distinguish some specialties. The whole thing is not understood and this is not strange considering that there is no education, this is not strange because having that certainly does show the difference in cutting, it shows that when there is turning there is no distress.

In kind, in a control, in a period, in the alteration of pigeons, in kind cuts and thick and thin spaces, in kind ham and different colors, the length of leaning a strong thing outside not to make a sound but to suggest a crust, the principal taste is when there is a whole chance to be reasonable, this does not mean that there is overtaking, this means nothing precious, this means clearly that the chance to exercise is a social success. So then the sound is not obtrusive. Suppose it is obtrusive, suppose it is. What is certainly the desertion is not a reduced description, a description is not a birthday.

Lovely snipe and tender turn, excellent vapor and slender butter, all the splinter and the trunk, all the poisonous darkning drunk, all the joy in weak success, all the joyful tenderness, all the section and the tea, all the stouter symmetry.

Around the size that is small, inside the stern that is the middle, besides the remains that are praying, inside the between that is turning, all the region is measuring and melting is exaggerating.

Rectangular ribbon does not mean that there is no eruption it means that if there is no place to hold there is no place to spread. Kindness is not earnest, it is not assiduous it is not revered. 

I was thinking that to begin with beef, roast beef, seemed very aggressively masculine. For as much as chicken plays through Tender Buttons, chicken does not have the political power of beef.” Karren Alenier

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF LEO LEAVING GERTRUDE

The Steiny Road Poet thinks it is best to start this post on the physical plane and therefore goes to the biographical commentary detailed by Karren Alenier [a.k.a. Steiny Road Poet or Steiny] in the ModPo discussion forum. While stanza one has boat imagery, stanza four seems to point to relation-ship. This epiphany comes from Teri Rife in a discussion of later “Food” subpoem where Alenier kept raising the issue about why Gertrude Stein hid the subpoem “Chain-boats.” from the “Food” table of contents and why water vehicles keep popping up in the Food section. Therefore, Steiny thinks the hidden and mysterious boats have to do with the hidden relationship between Stein and Alice Toklas.


Karren Alenier said,
“Here’s one way of reading stanza 4 through Leo Stein’s departure from the apartment he shared with his sister Gertrude. 
Considering the circumstances there is no occasion for a reduction (The circumstance is Leo is angry that expenses for Alice are coming out of the expenses he shares with Gertrude and he is angry about the cubist influence Picasso has on his sister. He decides to leave taking a portion of the artwork and the furniture. This reduction of household items is no occasion to celebrate for Gertrude.),

considering that there is no pealing there is no occasion for an obligation (When Alice met Gertrude, she said she heard bells ringing—pealing. As Leo leaves there is no celebration—no ringing of bells, like wedding bells—he also wants to assert his dependence to see if he might marry the woman he is seeing. So there is no obligation for Leo to leave),

considering that there is no outrage there is no necessity for any reparation (Leo’s leave-taking occurred over many months. It was not a sudden storm of outrage and nothing could be done to repair the situation. He made his decision and he was not going to be deterred from separating.),

considering that there is no particle sodden there is no occasion for deliberation (In Stein’s writerly landscape the particles—articles, prepositions, conjunction—take a larger role in her grammar, a grammar looking to take the sentimentality—soddenness—out of sentences and to revitalize the English language. This was not arbitrary for her and she did not need to deliberate over this, but her brother disapproved of this cubist approach).

Considering everything and which way the turn is tending, considering everything why is there no restraint, considering everything what makes the place settle and the plate distinguish some specialties. Leo was the axis (turn) around which their weekly salons turned and things were changing and restrictions that Leo imposed were lifted. Still the apartment was in an uproar as paintings, furniture, and household items were removed. Maybe his departure allowed Alice a greater opportunity to make special food that his delicate stomach could not tolerate.

The whole thing is not understood and this is not strange considering that there is no education, this is not strange because having that certainly does show the difference in cutting, it shows that when there is turning there is no distress. The separation of sister and brother was hard for Gertrude to appreciate. They had been through so many life changing events together—deaths of their parents, move from West coast to East, undergraduate school in Boston, Woods Hole marine workshop, art-collecting in Paris and more. Gertrude was not prepared for losing her brother (no education). Leo was cutting his ties with Gertrude but still there was something positive in this turn of events because she could now pursue her writing career without being judged by her brother.”

To this interpretation, Steiny, who recently read “Favored Strangers: Gertrude and Her Family by Linda Wagner-Martin, will add to the last sentence of stanza 4 that Gertrude did not approve of Nina Auzias, the woman Leo would eventually marry. Gertrude said Nina, who was also known as Nina of Montparnasse because she was an artist’s model who slept around, was below Leo’s station. Nina did not have the formal education earned by Leo and she was poor and not in the same economic class as the Stein family. Leo also told Gertrude that her involvement with Alice would lead to Gertrude being socially shamed.

FINDING THE FOOD AND SEX IN ROASTBEEF

Unlike the first three stanzas of “Roastbeef.”, the next several stanzas seem to address food or food preparation.

In responding to a comment by Shirley Collins, Alenier suggested:

Let's talk about Roastbeef, Shirley. There are kind cuts and thick and thin spaces in kind ham [stanza 5]. Maybe Stein has abbreviated ham-burger.”

Just to state the obvious, ground up, cooked beef might be in Stein’s shorthand an in kind ham.

Peter Treanor commented on this.

“Looking at this part of RBeef, through squinty eyes again, it seems that there is much more stuff that does seem to allude to food, food prep or having a meal than there was in the previous parts. Though they don’t necessarily jump out as all being related to roast beef. There's [from stanza 4:] reduction, peeling [pealing], sodden particle, tending, restraint, place, settle, plate, specialties, cutting, turning, [from stanza 5:] pigeons, kind cuts, thick and thin, ham, crust, taste, social success, des(s)ert-ion, reduced, [from stanza 6:] tender, turn, vapor, slender, butter, poisonous, drunk, tea, stout(er), [from stanza 7:] remains, measuring, melting, [from stanza 8:] spread. All are terms that would likely be found in a cookbook. So there’s a sense that at least on one level, she could be talking about food or a meal.

“Something that jumps out is what she does with pigeons [in stanza 5]. What are pigeons doing with Roast beef? Pigeon pie is a food, pigeon can be eaten. But the sentence is interesting. In kind, in a control, in a period, in the alteration of pigeons, in kind cuts and thick and thin spaces, in kind ham. She points points points to "in."  She uses it 3 times before in the alteration of pigeons. And there is pig in pigeons (and eons). She follows this with " in kind cuts and thick and thin spaces, in kind ham." In altering, cutting, slicing thick and thin the word "pigeons," we get pig/ham. In fact we get in kind ham.  In is in "in kind," pig is in pigeons, pig is a kind of ham.  Ham follows so close after pigeons and hasn’t been mentioned before it seems that there must be a link between them, surely? So to me, there seems to be a really strong sense here that she is using the sentence to indicate how to deconstruct or rearrange the sentence to get another meaning out of it. This seems to be something she does often (or it seems to me).

“The other thing that struck me as odd on first reading was the use of snipe [stanza 6]. Lovely snipe and tender turn. So snipe could be to criticise (but it is referred to as lovely so that would seem incongruous—though I know she wouldn’t flinch from incongruity) or it could be the bird Snipe. But it’s also an anagram of penis! (I know I keep seeing penises everywhere, what can I say, the thing seems full of them. Maybe they are only in the I of the beholder!) But if you read snipe as penis, it puts a whole different slant on the passage.

“Penis/snipe is lovely, tender turn, excellent and slender, butter  (creamy lubricant), all the trunk, poisonous darkening, drunk, joyful tenderness, weak, success, all the section, all the stouter, symmetrical.

“Then she ups the ante [in stanza 7]. Around the size that is small, inside the stern that is the middle (is she talking about anal sex? the stern meaning behind, the behind), inside the between that is turning, all the region is measuring and melting is exaggerating. (she repeats inside twice, is she emphasizing penetration? and focusing on size and exaggerating it! So very male in that respect.)

Rectangular ribbon (? a condom) does not mean that there is no eruption (ejaculation) it means that if there is no place to hold there is no place to spread. Kindness is not earnest, it is not assiduous it is not revered. 
All this language [in stanza 8] seems really sexual and referring to the size and use of the penis/snipe.

“This roastbeef dinner is very hot.”

Alenier responded:

“I see the roastbeef din is not only hot but loud. Here let me pause to tell you how much I have been chuckling over your comments.

“As you point out with your analysis of pigeons==>pig + eons and how it stands side by side with in kind ham which also glances off me having said hamburger==>ham + burger and how that relates to roastbeef, well what we are seeing is the need to deconstruct and reconstruct her words even more than we felt the necessity to in "Objects".

“Ah, and now for the supreme anagram: snipe==>penis!

“From the beginning before I started dipping into the first subpoem of "Food," I was thinking that to begin with beef, roast beef, seemed very aggressively masculine. For as much as chicken plays through Tender Buttons, chicken does not have the political power of beef. But beef also plays into Stein's lesbian lexicon by pointing to cow, to which we know Stein has assigned sexual meaning (have a cow = orgasm).”

WATER BIRDS AND BOAT NAVIGATION

Then there is the matter that a snipe can be:
Any of various longbilled shore birds of the genus Gallinago or Capella, related to 
the woodcocks.

Alenier offered these comments:

Given snipe is a bird with a long bill, I'm thinking this snipe is Alice with her long nose.

And since Pete has seen that snipe-->penis and I'm seeing snipes are related to woodcocks. Stein is having a lot of fun with the sexual linkages.”

Steiny adds that the snipe is a shore or riverbank bird. Alenier saw additional signs of a boat and water navigation:

Around the size that is small, inside the stern that is the middle, besides the remains that are praying, inside the between that is turning, all the region is measuring and melting is exaggerating.

“Stanza 7 reminds me of the following lines in stanza 1:”
All the standards have steamers and all the curtains have bed linen and all the yellow has discrimination and all the circle has circling. This makes sand.

“Why?


“What I see in stanza 1 is the paddleboat, the steamer. In stanza 7, stern could be the rear of a boat. Like stanza 1 with the word standards that could be a measurement, stanza 7 has size that is small plus you get these directional cues—inside, middle, between, turning and then measuring.

“What is mysterious in stanza 7 is remains that are praying.”

Treanor had a response for that:
“I’m seeing this paddle steamer more clearly now. And wonder if the remains that are praying could be the bubbling swirling wake that the steamer leaves in the water behind it. It looks molten and melting like lava. Wake also being a time of prayer and celebration after someone has died by the people who remain. The remains that are praying, the wake behind the steamer?

“Or maybe it is the loves ones who remain on the quay waving off their loved ones, praying for their safe passage.”

Alenier liked the parallel between the boat’s wake and time of mourning tied to prayer. She said,

“How interesting to see loved ones waving on the quay. Waving having a water association and there was so much of that send-off thing in those days because one never knew if the departing loved one would ever be seen again. Of course that was no exaggeration.”

THE NARROWNESS OF RIBBON, THE MORAL RIGHTNESS OF RECTANGLES

Rectangular ribbon does not mean that there is no eruption it means that if there is no place to hold there is no place to spread. Kindness is not earnest, it is not assiduous it is not revered. 

While Treanor said stanza 8 pointed to sexual inferences like the snipe/penis, Alenier kicked the discussion up a notch to discuss gender and morality. She said,

“What is ribbon? A narrow strip of fabric.

“What is rectangular? Having one or more right angles.

“If we think of kindness as related to gender (how a person identifies his/her sex—female or male or other and how this might play into sexual relationships (like the relationship Stein has with Toklas, which was forbidden in their time), maybe Stein is pointing at the morality of her relationship with Toklas.

Ribbon points to something narrow and rectangular points at rightness. If the relationship cannot be shown (no eruption of it), then what is illicit cannot gain a handhold (no place to hold) or find a way to proliferate (spread). So if this issue of gender (kindness) is not sincere (not earnest) as well as inconstant in application (not assiduous) and not well thought of (not revered), then it cannot gain acceptance. Additionally, if gender (kindness) is not homosexual (earnest), it is not persistent (assiduous) it is not well thought of (revered), is Stein talking about herself (a woman who has a male identity but may be bisexual)?

KIND VERSUS GENDER

Before we go back to stanza 4 to look at it in more psychological and grammatical ways, Steiny stops here [at stanza 8] to say Stein’s reference to rectangles might be pointing back to subpoem 4 “A box.” in section 1 “Objects”.

Speaking to Alenier, Treanor had this to say about kind, kindness and Stein’s strange choice of words like cutting:

“I am getting really intrigued by her use of kind and kindness.  She uses it a lot. And thinking of your thoughts on the dispute with Leo in this passage, it feels like that one of its uses maybe as a reference to family, I know we’ve seen kin in kind before. Of a kind=related=family. But with family so important to her, maybe this explains why kind is used so often, otherwise it seems like a strange word to use so frequently. But there are also all the other meanings of kind so I guess she would love the ambiguity of it too. And maybe the ambiguity of who constitutes family. Does Alice count as family to her now? Or her new artist friends?

“But the use of cutting is strange too. But then in the context of the row with Leo as you say there is cutting of family ties, cutting of kind. And cutting is equally ambiguous and has multiple meanings.

“She does seem to have words that she likes or gravitates too. Words that she repeats again and again. She doesn’t seem to be aiming at a wide use of varied vocabulary, rather a strange and varied use of a core of particular words.” 


Alenier responded:

Pete, I agree absolutely that kind/kindness is immensely important.

“As to family we have the German word Kind meaning child (as in kindergarten).

“As to Alice, well yes, she becomes family by marriage but more importantly is the association with gender (kind meaning type).

“My theory is for every use of kind in Tender Buttons (or at least in section 1 "Objects") if you substitute the word gender, the sentence takes on a bigger meaning.  Here is what I found in "Objects":

Within “Objects,” nine subpoems use the word kind and to read use of that word as gender, even where kind seems to indicate caring behavior, sharpens the reader’s awareness of the identity issues Stein was grappling with. Here are the sentences using kind:

A kind in glass and a cousin, a spectacle and nothing strange a single hurt color and an arrangement in a system to pointing—A carafe, that is a blind glass.”. 

What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it. … In any kind of place there is a top to covering and it is a pleasure at any rate there is some venturing in refusing to believe nonsense.—“A substance in a cushion.”. 

Out of kindness comes redness and out of rudeness comes rapid same question, out of an eye comes research, out of selection comes painful cattle—A box.”. 

A kind of green a game in green and nothing flat nothing quite flat and more round, nothing a particular color strangely, nothing breaking the losing of no little piece.—“A plate.”   

This which was so kindly a present was constant—A seltzer bottle.”. 

Wondering so winningly in several kinds of oceans is the reason that makes red so regular and enthusiastic—More.”. 

The kind of show is made by squeezing—Objects.”. 

What was the use of a whole time to send and not send if there was to be the kind of thing that made that come in—A fire.”. 

It means kind wavers and little chance to beside beside rest—Book.”.

Stein uses the word kind or some form of it ten times in section 1 “Objects” and 17 times in section 2 “Food”. In “Roastbeef.”, she uses kind or a variant nine times so Steiny believes that Stein assigns some critical importance to this word.

CONSIDERING CONSIDERING

Rebekah Copas read stanza 4 with all its repetitions of considering as “a simple, and understated, self mockery” that she said moves into absurdity. Looking ahead to stanza 5, Copas also said that Stein is “actualizing the practice of considering points in need of being remembered” as these points pertain to food preparations. Copas asks could Stein be helping with a birthday party? That question arises from the last sentence of stanza 5:

What is certainly the desertion is not a reduced description, a description is not a birthday.

If Stein is mocking herself, or, for that matter, the situation, then Steiny supposes that Stein’s last sentence is ironic and contrary to its negativity (not’s).

Treanor had these thoughts on stanza 4:

“In the first stanza (of Roastbeef.) Stein was focusing on feeling.
In the 3rd stanza, there is lots of change/ exchange and difference.
Now in this (4th stanza of Roastbeef), she is considering.

“She has changed from feeling to thinking/ looking closely at.( considering)
In the 1st paragraph concerned with feeling, she was using in the ( a)... there is (b) formulation (uses it, or a close variation, 7/8 times).

“In the fourth paragraph concerned with considering she formulates the sentence by using considering, the (x1), that there is no (x3), everything(x3)....and concludes it with there is no (x 5).

“So in considering she seems to be identifying a lack of something or property of thing, as in there is no. While in the first feeling paragraph is a simpler pointing as in, in the, there are.

“Is she suggesting something about the nature of feeling versus thinking?”

CONSIDERING VERSUS SUPPOSING

Alenier responded:

“Great analysis about how Stein is moving from feeling to thinking. I think this kind of movement is like being on a seesaw. As we move through the stanzas I think you'll get a clearer picture of how Stein goes back and forth.

“Although there are glimpses of food, like what Rebekah was noticing, this is more food for thought. Even in stanza 1 there is meaning so there isn't all feeling.

“I am also thinking Stein's considering lines up with her supposing. For example, look at these lines from stanza 3 of ‘A substance in a cushion.’:”

A cushion has that cover. Supposing you do not like to change, supposing it is very clean that there is no change in appearance, supposing that there is regularity and a costume is that any the worse than an oyster and an exchange. Come to season that is there any extreme use in feather and cotton. Is there not much more joy in a table and more chairs and very likely roundness and a place to put them. 

“I think it is worth looking at the entire stanza. Words like cover, change, appearance are part of the Roastbeef landscape. If not exactly, then by inference. (i.e. cover==>sleeping, bed linen; change=change; appearance==>in the outside there is reddening, in feeling there is recognition).

“In ‘A substance…’, there is the table reference. This signals Stein waxing metaphysical with the table pointing to the philosophic argument that uses table to establish what is real versus what is illusion.”

KNOWING VERSUS NO-ING

Treanor answered:

“And just looking at the considering paragraph again and noticing how it’s all structured around ‘no’ and double ‘no's’, i.e., considering there is no A then there is no B.
“It seems strange to focus on what there isn’t rather than what there is. Though she does this a lot throughout the piece as a whole.

“What are all the negative no's about? There seems to be a feeling of a vacuum or emptiness or leaving (maybe Leo leaving as Karren says). Or are all these no's saying something about knowing or not knowing?  

“Knowing and considering are very closely linked.

“She seems to comment in the paragraph, on this strangeness of considering the negative, the not knowing , the no-ing she is doing—The whole thing is not understood and this is not strange considering—and she goes on to describe why that there is no education, this is not strange because having that certainly does show the difference in cutting, it shows that when there is turning there is no distress.

“She seems to be saying something like not understanding (knowing) is not strange because having certainly (Could she really mean certainty) shows the difference is cutting, there is turning and no distress. 

“But what is the difference is cutting? Is cutting referring to incision? Incision and incisive (thinking) both coming from the same root meaning ‘to cut into’?  

“And Karren, ‘I am also thinking Stein's considering lines up with her supposing.’ Yes supposing and considering being used throughout TB, she seems to be asking, inquiring and comparing at times. She frequently uses If this then that and if not this then not that or variations of these. The nature of what she is describing, at these times, seems to be related to its relationship(s) to its consequences or influences on something else. This seems important to her in her describing and pointing. It seems less ‘a rose is a rose is a rose’ and more ‘a rose is a rose is a thing that is contingent on the effect it has on the things around it.’ It’s an interesting idea that things are defined in terms of their relationship to things that surround them.”

THE HIERARCHY OF KNOWLEDGE

Alenier responded:

“Brilliant for sure, Pete! All the no-ing==>knowing.

“So I'll put this branch of philosophy—Epistemology—on Stein's ‘existence’/ontological/metaphysical table. 

“If you venture into philosophic discourse, first one must establish that s/he exists and has a firm table on which to Xamine things in order to learn, to come to knowing. 

“There seems to be some noise around the value of knowing versus understanding. In any case, knowing seems to be a higher order than believing. Maybe our experience runs:
believing==>learning==>knowing==>understanding

“Stein's association with the philosopher-psychologist William James as his student at Harvard comes into play here. I will assert that her training by James does not negate her Jewish background and I'm not saying she has a strong Jewish belief system. Rather I'm saying that the environment you grow up in influences your whole life for better or worse. 

“I will also say that William James was fascinated by paranormal phenomenon. And he practiced pluralistic thinking—that is, he accepted contradiction. We see this in Stein.”


STEIN SYSTEM OF GRAMMAR

If Stein’s system of grammar is left out of the analysis of Tender Buttons, then the discussion is incomplete. Here’s what Alenier had to say on this topic:

“Relative to the reminder that Stein layers in instructions for how to read her texts [Peter Treanor made this observation early in the discussion of section 1 ‘Objects’], I want to go back to stanza 4 and the line considering that there is no particle sodden there is no occasion for deliberation
and what I  said about particles in particular:
(In Stein’s writerly landscape the particles—articles, prepositions, conjunction—take a larger role in her grammar, a grammar looking to take the sentimentality—soddenness—out of sentences and to revitalize the English language.)

Let's look at stanza 5 for prepositions:”
In kind, in a control, in a period, in the alteration of pigeons, in kind cuts and thick and thin spaces, in kind ham and different colors, the length of leaning a strong thing outside not to make a sound but to suggest a crust, the principal taste is when there is a whole chance to be reasonable, this does not mean that there is overtaking, this means nothing precious, this means clearly that the chance to exercise is a social success. So then the sound is not obtrusive. Suppose it is obtrusive, suppose it is. What is certainly the desertion is not a reduced description, a description is not a birthday.

“There are 8 prepositions and they are heavily loaded at the front of stanza 5. She also uses the word ‘to’ but this is not a preposition because it is part of a verb infinitive structure—to make, to suggest, to exercise.



Let's look at stanza 5 for articles:”
In kind, in a control, in a period, in the alteration of pigeons, in kind cuts and thick and thin spaces, in kind ham and different colors, the length of leaning a strong thing outside not to make a sound but to suggest a crust, the principal taste is when there is a whole chance to be reasonable, this does not mean that there is overtaking, this means nothing precious, this means clearly that the chance to exercise is a social success. So then the sound is not obtrusive. Suppose it is obtrusive, suppose it is. What is certainly the desertion is not a reduced description, a description is not a birthday.

“There are 14 articles spread through stanza 5. They are evenly divided between ‘a’ and ‘the.’ Maybe we should look at what she chooses to indicate as ‘the’ (specific) versus ‘a‘ (general). Why I say this is because Stein heavily uses ‘a’ in Tender Buttons and that may be Stein pointing at Alice, the lover she cannot name openly.

Let's look at stanza 5 for conjunctions:”
In kind, in a control, in a period, in the alteration of pigeons, in kind cuts and thick and thin spaces, in kind ham and different colors, the length of leaning a strong thing outside not to make a sound but to suggest a crust, the principal taste is when there is a whole chance to be reasonable, this does not mean that there is overtaking, this means nothing precious, this means clearly that the chance to exercise is a social success. So then the sound is not obtrusive. Suppose it is obtrusive, suppose it is. What is certainly the desertion is not a reduced description, a description is not a birthday.

“If I haven’t missed any, I count 5 conjunctions. Conjunctions come in three categories coordinate, correlative, and subordinate. Most familiar are coordinating conjunctions: and, but, or, nor, for, yet, so. Most of what we see in stanza 5 are coordinating conjunctions but there is also one subordinating conjunction (when).

“The overall count of prepositions, articles, conjunctions in the 112 words of stanza 5 is about 22%. Stein likes these grammatical forms better, she says in Lectures in America essays, than nouns and adjectives. Still she is unable to do away with nouns (and adjectives to some degree) but they are being used sometimes strangely.

“Something else to look at relative to conjunction use is stanza 4. In stanza 4 Stein uses the word ‘considering’ as a subordinating conjunction and it is used 6 times. She also uses ‘and’ three times.”

Treanor responded:

That’s fantastic, Karren, now grammar is all a bit beyond me I’m afraid so I struggle at naming and formally knowing what all the bits of a sentence are (I blame the trendy liberal English education system of the 1970s), but obviously I have an informal grasp of it. She is clearly using articles, prepositions, conjunctions differently and prolifically as you show. Does she say anything anywhere about why she likes them? and what she sees them as doing that is different or interesting? Or what reasons she has for changing the way they were traditionally used?”

Alenier answered,
“First I'm going to tell you what Stein said about prepositions which she claims can be irritating but she likes them best of all.

“Later in "Poetry and Grammar" [from Lectures in America] she talks about long sentences particular to what she wrote in The Making of Americans. She said, ‘Verbs and adverbs aided by prepositions and conjunctions with pronouns as possessing the whole of the active life of writing.’ I think what this means is prepositions contribute to the activeness of verbs and adverbs that work for her because she is trying to create what's happening now. 

Here is what Stein says about articles in ‘Poetry and Grammar’:”

Articles are interesting just as nouns and adjectives are not.

“She says articles please—‘Articles please, a and an and the please as the name that follows cannot please.’ 

“Then refers to ‘what Shakespeare meant when he talked about a rose by any other name.’

“I find this hard to interpret but I think this is why we are within good reason to think that her excessive use of the article 'a' throughout "Objects" is her way of keeping Alice on the metaphysical table.  [This means when a reader comes to the article 'a' in Tender Buttons, s/he can substitute Alice and the phrase will still make sense or increase sense making. Stein is all about appealing to the senses if not sense making.]

Stein doesn't have so much to say about conjunctions in "Poetry and Grammar" but here is what I got:”

…a conjunction is not varied but it has a force that need not make any one feel that they are dull. Conjunctions have made themselves live by their work.

“She concludes about the grammatical particles by saying:”

So you see why I like to write with prepositions and conjunctions and articles and verbs and adverbs but not with nouns and adjectives. If you read my writing you will you do see what I mean.

“Then she talks about pronouns which are not as bad as nouns because they can't be used with adjectives.”

HEARING BLAKE IN STEIN

Finally, Steiny leaves this discussion with the poetry found in stanza 6. Alenier broke the prose poem into lines, and then heard William Blake.

Lovely snipe and tender turn,
excellent vapor and slender butter,
all the splinter and the trunk,
all the poisonous darkning drunk,
all the joy in weak success,
all the joyful tenderness,
all the section and the tea,
all the stouter symmetry.

“Stanza 6 uncharacteristically has a good deal of regular rhyme:
tender/slender, trunk/drunk, success/tenderness, tea/symmetry.

“What came to mind is:”

THE TYGER
       by William Blake

Tyger Tyger, burning bright,
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye,
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies.
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand, dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder, & what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain,
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp,
Dare its deadly terrors clasp!

When the stars threw down their spears
And water’d heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

Tyger Tyger burning bright,
In the forests of the night:
What immortal hand or eye,
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?



Participants: Shirley Collins, Rebekah Copas, Judy Meibach, Peter Treanor



No comments: