Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Stein as Magical Realism

As Borges wrote in Labyrinths, there are a people to whom life is “a heterogeneous series of independent acts”. Borges means that to a people he invented in his work, they cannot name something because to name something is to classify something, to say what something is and ascribe to it certain qualities. Borges’ inhabitants could not do this. Neither can Stein. 

Marquez’s masterpiece “A Hundred Years of Solitude” treats time in the same way. In Marquez’s world, there is no past, only present. Time spirals around one family, where they walk forward but look backward to their family past. Thus, the past is ever present and ever changing. So too for Stein.

This form of magical realism fits Stein. Stein’s writing does not describe the thing it is looking at, but how she is looking at it, her thought processes and what she sees[1]. Were she to describe the object or food or room she is beholding, she could not accurately describe it. As Borges said, to name something is to boil something down to its essence. Stein’s writing, despite its title, does not do this. She does not want to do this either.
Inspired by Picasso and other up and coming artists, Stein wished to give her reader a snapshot of her vision and thoughts, the way visual arts captured those moments with paint. To represent a single moment in time and only provide that moment’s vision, but through words, was Stein’s aspiration. Therefore is a carafe a “cousin”, a word chosen to represent what Stein saw and felt as she was looking at the carafe. Cousin, certainly, does not describe a carafe but it may encapsulate what Stein thought or felt, possibly because the words sound similar. 

Marquez’s idea of spiraling time fits Stein as well. Look at her buttons about chickens. The same object, the same title, yet told in a different way in four buttons. Those four different ways build off of each other, like stepping stones about chicken. She spirals around the chicken, which each button she advances the reader’s understanding of chicken as Stein sees it but yet looks backwards to build off of the preceding chicken. First, chicken is a “peculiar bird”, then she builds that up to a “dirty bird”, then to “mean” and finally the repetition of the word “stick” to describe the chicken. Spoken aloud, stick sounds violent and hate-filled. Chicken is not, to Stein, just peculiar, dirty, or mean, but something to be violent towards. Like Marquez’s created family, she turns an object around and around to assemble that object from different angles and ideas. 

The tricky thing is getting into this state of mind at the outset of Stein. She needs to be constantly read and struggled with in order to understand this writing. More time must be spent working through her words, words which are representative not of objects or themselves, but only a fleeting moment in time, a constantly evolving moment.


[1] What she sees is different than what the object is, as is apparent in the first button: most people know what a carafe is and that it is not a “blind glass”. Thus she tells us she sees a “blind glass” but that does not describe the thing she is looking at, the carafe.

7 comments:

  1. Why do you suppose she writes different buttons about chicken and only a few other objects/foods?
    I like your idea of how Stein "turns an object around and around to assemble that object from different angles," but she does it (by using the same heading with different descriptions) very seldom. Why do you think that is so?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is a really good way to read her writing-- which of her stories and/or poems were you referring to? I'll definitely have to go back to her poetry and re-read them!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just to clarify something I said in class: even though Stein isn't magic realist per se (she was born and wrote too early), one can still note affinities between her writing and that of others who are associated with magic realism. I think Suzanne's comments about the potential similarities between how Marquez and Stein see things in relation to time is perfectly valid. In a way, you could say that CUBISM--and by implication Stein's ideas about how time exists in art--anticipate some ideas expressed by Marquez and Borges.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Natalie, I don't know why it is so. Perhaps something captured her imagination about chickens? Broadly, she does discuss a lot of different types of food, garments, and the like. Though she may avoid specifics, she engages with a wide topic quite frequently.

    Hannah, Thanks! I was thinking specifically of Mrs. Dalloway since I fell in love with the book!

    Prof. Miller, thanks for the defense. I would agree.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't actually know what magic realism is, but I also really like your view on how to read Stein. I especially like your idea of Stein presenting a snapshot of her views. I think the most difficult part of reading Stein's poetry is attempting to see things through her 'snapshots.' For example, while on the subject of chicken, as a vegetarian and member of Peta, it took me numerous readings to understand her description of the chicken. This was because it took me time to step back from my own snapshot, and into her view. I mean, for me, the chicken was not a 'mean' bird, so I had to accustom myself to understanding chicken through her view. Instead of trying to manipulate her words to fit my understanding, I had to manipulate my understanding to fit her words.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I also am not familiar with the concept of magic realism (sounds oxymoronic!), but I appreciate your idea of Stein turning objects "around and around to assemble that object from different angles and ideas." If we view the descriptions in Tender Buttons through a straight and narrow lens according to a traditional definition, we are blinded to the meaning Stein is conveying to us. When we open up our interpretation to consider other possible perspectives, then we truly let her light shine in.

    ReplyDelete
  7. While I do not know a lot about magic realism, I found this post very insightful into understanding Stein's deconstructions. I would agree that Stein's focus is not the object/food/room itself, rather her perception.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.