WORD COUNT
(Total)……..- 1757
STANZA(S)............................-
37
THE
LEADER........................-
THE STEINY ROAD POET
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:
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:
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.”
Wondering so winningly in several kinds of
oceans is the reason that makes red so regular and enthusiastic—“More.”.
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.”.
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.
“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’?
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
“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
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment